Boston 2024

[DominusNovus]

I've said it before; Boston should submit a bid that works for Boston. Heavy reliance on existing facilities, spread around venues, partnering with schools/developers, etc. If the IOC doesn't like it they can go shove.

This right here seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action to me. Bid for it on Boston's terms. There's no reason why it couldn't be fiscally responsible. The IOC may or may not like it, I don't know. Perhaps they won't like it but there won't be enough other options.

Either way, I'd prefer for Boston to offer a bid on our terms than for there to be no bid at all for fear of how much it could cost, when we're in charge of the costs.

 

[choo]

I fall into the camp of leaning towards an Olympics, with infrastructure acceleration being a big plus in my eyes. Rather than speculate costs-benefits and major inhibitors, i propose another thought exercise I am curious about.

The GLX is long planned and on an existing RoW, but still won't be done until 2020.

So say Boston does get awarded the Olympics sometime in 2015. That leaves 9 years with a lot to get done. What are the top 5 transit/infrastructure enhancements that get completed pre-Opening ceremony that would otherwise most likely not be done until post-2030. (I'm thinking more olympics related and less FR/NB commuter rail that won't/shouldn't be Olympic dependent.)

 

[davem]

This right here seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action to me. Bid for it on Boston's terms. There's no reason why it couldn't be fiscally responsible. The IOC may or may not like it, I don't know. Perhaps they won't like it but there won't be enough other options.

Either way, I'd prefer for Boston to offer a bid on our terms than for there to be no bid at all for fear of how much it could cost, when we're in charge of the costs.

I wish not just Boston, but other countries would take up this stance. As I see it, the IOC would then be faced with a crossroads: either accept a bid that balances their needs and the desires of the host city, or have the olympics hosted in a 2nd world country incapable of pulling off construction projects of the magnitude they propose.

Even if they reject it the first time around, if established cities/countries all start submitting bids that don't conform to the IOCs bloated and unreasonable demands, they may start to reconsider.The cities submitting reasonable bids should also be very public about it. "We want to host the olympics, but we don't want to go broke."

When did this excess extravagance start anyway? I don't recall the olympics of my youth to be so completely overblown, and you don't see as many white whale venues sitting around from before the 80s. (Yes I know the multi-purpose venues of the mid century were bad for the sports they were reused for, but that was bad design, they thought they would work when constructed.) Is it's genesis the '36 games, with Hitler using it to showcase the third reichs prowess? Was construction just cheaper before, so building useless venues didn't matter?

 

[Matthew]

This seems pretty white whale to me:

 

[Equilibria]

When did this excess extravagance start anyway? I don't recall the olympics of my youth to be so completely overblown, and you don't see as many white whale venues sitting around from before the 80s. (Yes I know the multi-purpose venues of the mid century were bad for the sports they were reused for, but that was bad design, they thought they would work when constructed.) Is it's genesis the '36 games, with Hitler using it to showcase the third reichs prowess? Was construction just cheaper before, so building useless venues didn't matter?

It ebbs and flows. The 1984 Los Angeles Games were a lowpoint in spending, because Montreal had bankrupted themselves right before the bidding - no one would bid for '84 and the IOC had to beg LA to do it. The result was lots of existing venues (including some events held across the country) and heavy reliance on the freeways to move people. Seoul and Barcelona also were quite modest and successful in incorporating what needed to be built into the urban fabric. Even derided Atlanta was left without much white elephant-age - Turner Field is not being abandoned because it was a bad idea (it was right next to the prior stadium) , but because the team that occupies it is opportunistic and slightly racist.

I actually think Sydney started the slide. They were the first to build an Olympic Park on a reclaimed site far from Downtown, necessitating overbuilt infrastructure out on the fringe. Athens also built a whole lot from scratch. The real killers, though, are Beijing and Sochi. I think Beijing changed everything - the first time more people watched the opening ceremony than the events. Sochi carried that forward.

The sad part to me is that cities (not the IOC) can't get it through their heads that Sochi didn't set a precedent. The IOC is being poorly served by having to babysit every single host city and bathe in negative publicity over worker mistreatment and political suppression. 2024 is going to be the next 1984 - the best chance in 40 years for a city to dictate the terms of its hosting, because I just don't think the IOC is giving the Games to Qatar, and that's the only extravagant option left.

The Olympics that Boston should pursue is one which provides political impetus to fund infrastructure improvements in the urban core. No fringe village, no extensions. Take this opportunity to do the "impossible" - make real improvements to the Green Line tunnel, Red/Blue Connector, North-South Rail Link, Green Line - SBW. New signaling and track repair pretty much everywhere. Force the State Police to let the Silver Line use the freaking onramp. Make the city survive crowded with millions of guests, and you'll make it function smoothly on the average day.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

So say Boston does get awarded the Olympics sometime in 2015. That leaves 9 years with a lot to get done. What are the top 5 transit/infrastructure enhancements that get completed pre-Opening ceremony that would otherwise most likely not be done until post-2030. (I'm thinking more olympics related and less FR/NB commuter rail that won't/shouldn't be Olympic dependent.)

It's hard to pick just 5, but if we're talking five MAJOR projects (ie: expansions, but not rolling stock/signals), then:

1. Urban Ring - hands down, without a doubt, absolutely needed and the best project to come out of this whole thing
2. Red-Blue Connector and Blue Line to Lynn
3. Cannibalizing the Needham Line into the Green and Orange Lines
4. Large improvements to the Lowell (including double tracking the Wildcat Branch and a Manchester extension), Worcester, and Providence lines
5. New/Improved rail service to Providence and Manchester airports

As for highway:

1. The Southeast Expressway simply cannot continue as-is if we're hosting the Olympics
2. The Woburn Cloverleaf needs to be a stack
3. The Canton Cloverleaf needs to be a stack
4. The 3/128 interchange needs to be like 24/128
5. Redesign Rt 2 from 128 to Alewife, including removing general use lanes but having an HOV lane system

 

[hockey92]

It's hard to pick just 5, but if we're talking five MAJOR projects (ie: expansions, but not rolling stock/signals), then:

1. Urban Ring - hands down, without a doubt, absolutely needed and the best project to come out of this whole thing
2. Red-Blue Connector and Blue Line to Lynn
3. Cannibalizing the Needham Line into the Green and Orange Lines
4. Large improvements to the Lowell (including double tracking the Wildcat Branch and a Manchester extension), Worcester, and Providence lines
5. New/Improved rail service to Providence and Manchester airports

As for highway:

1. The Southeast Expressway simply cannot continue as-is if we're hosting the Olympics
2. The Woburn Cloverleaf needs to be a stack
3. The Canton Cloverleaf needs to be a stack
4. The 3/128 interchange needs to be like 24/128
5. Redesign Rt 2 from 128 to Alewife, including removing general use lanes but having an HOV lane system

Any idea of how much all of those improvements would cost? I'd have to guess in the billions, somewhere around 5b?

P.S. Urban ring needs to happen now regardless of Olympics!

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Any idea of how much all of those improvements would cost? I'd have to guess in the billions, somewhere around 5b?

P.S. Urban ring needs to happen now regardless of Olympics!

Oh, well in excess of $5bil, I'm sure. That alone would probably be your price tag for the Urban Ring, depending on which mode (BRT, Light Rail, Heavy Rail) you go with.

Red-Blue and BLX to Lynn would probably cost $1bil at each end.

Cannibalizing the Needham Line may cost $1bil total.

I'm not sure what it would take to make the Lowell/Worcester/Providence lines really beefy. Relatively little, compared to the other projects, I'd imagine.

And new service to Manchester shouldn't be terribly difficult, although forging an airport connection may require quite a bit of planning and maybe some compromises in location and using shuttles.

The interchanges might be 500mil each? Not sure.

These are all just guesstimates, really. But I imagine that it'd all be tagged pretty close to those prices.

 

[MBTAddict]

I think those interchange projects would be more in the $200 or $300 million range. At least one is scheduled to be fixed (I think Woburn) in the not too distant future. Pretty sure its on the Boston MPO TIP

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'm not sure what it would take to make the Lowell/Worcester/Providence lines really beefy. Relatively little, compared to the other projects, I'd imagine.

Right-of-way acquisition is really, really expensive - and there's a lot of places where we're going to be hamstrung by a lack of available right-of-way for a contiguous third or fourth track. In the universe where we ended up stuck holding the bag on the Olympics, sure, silence all dissent and put four contiguous tracks from Back Bay right through to T.F. Green, but doing so isn't really going to be relatively little compared to the other projects on the list.

At least three contiguous tracks are needed if we want to get serious about express service from Rhode Island to Boston. Unfortunately, when RIDOT takes over in-state commuter rail service, they've indicated that they plan for a shuttle with a cross-platform transfer only. The MBTA is presumably going to cut service all the way back to Providence, which is really unfortunate if you're trying to run anything approximating full service between T.F. Green and South Station. Having the contiguous third or fourth track and allowing for moving overtakes would also go a long way towards solving the problems we have with giant holes in the schedule representing Amtrak arrivals and departures, allowing us to increase service on both fronts.

"Really beefy" Providence Line service is, in my opinion, 20 trains per hour in each direction - 6 locals to and from Providence, 6 locals to and from Kingston expressing between Providence and Boston, 4 Amtrak regional trains in either direction, 4 Amtrak expresses in either direction.

We could get it done, but it's impossible without at least a contiguous third track. (8 Amtrak TPH each way is also impossible without doing something about the movable bridges and the grade crossings - but it's the Olympics thread, so whatever!)

 

[choo]

^ Seems like a lot and getting away from the Olympics focused transport. I would much prefer to see some upgrades to/from logan. TF Green just doesn't have the demand to warrant all that growth for a Boston olympics.

I'd love to see the Silver line tunnel tracked and a bore that goes under the harbor to the middle of logan. Direct track connection to terminals would seem very important infrastructure for the Olympics but also the region (as a rider of the silver line knows. Perhaps it could go to Central parking and then to the airport blue line stop as a part of the urban ring.

 

[underground]

I'm in total agreement with Equilibrium. Present a smart plan that only includes what's best for Greater Boston, and see if the IOC is willing to do what's actually best for the IOC and not pick a city that will bankrupt itself.

 

[MBTAddict]

I'm in total agreement with Equilibrium. Present a smart plan that only includes what's best for Greater Boston, and see if the IOC is willing to do what's actually best for the IOC and not pick a city that will bankrupt itself.

Absolutely. Nowhere does it say the plan has to be some ridiculous, all brand-new fancy stuff. Are there a few things you can't avoid needing to build new? Yes, but we don't need to completely ignore the decades long wish list for both transportation and housing that we have in the region to build it. We can kill multiple birds with one stone if it's done well.

 

[fattony]

Some food for thought for the Olympic skeptics: the feds gave $600 million to Atlanta in 1996. They gave something like $1.3 billion to SLC in 2002 (nearly half the total cost). Nearly all of those dollars were spent on transit and infrastructure rather than games venues. 2024 might be an opportunity to attract several billion dollars of federal money to Boston and Mass. The London Games (I believe a fair comparison point, more fair than Beijing) cost $15 billion dollars. What if our bid cost the same and a third or half the money were to come from the feds?

I'm not sure how the accounting is done for the "Olympics don't make money" math but if SLC got 1 federal dollar for every state, local, and private dollar it is hard to imagine the state, local, and private contributors didn't come out ahead. It's like your 401k match - it is a no-brainer instant 100% ROI. I spend $1 billion on venues and hotels and I get the venues, hotels, AND a streetcar system. Maybe on the whole the Games don't make a profit, but for the host city all that federal spending MUST mean a net win, no?

 

[DominusNovus]

Well, there's no reason to think the Feds would be any more willing to spend money than the local governments.

But I really do like the idea of this being another 1984 Olympics. Keep things under control. After all, we all know that Boston has pretty much every venue it needs, other than a Velodrome, a proper Olympic stadium, and a large enough aquatic venue.

I have a question there: I know we've all written off the idea of using Gillette as the stadium. However, if this idea of presenting a more austere bid is gaining popularity, why not try to use Gillette? Of course, you'd have to ramp up the rail connection there and run the commuter rail pretty much constantly throughout the games, and the IOC would probably frown at it being *way* outside of the urban center. But the London Stadium cost just about a billion dollars on its own (~900 mil for construction and ~90 mil for conversion for normal use).

As an added bonus, you know Kraft would probably love it. And you've got a fairly easy to secure area there in Patriot Place. Heck, perhaps even some of the retail there could be temporarily moved out if additional square footage is needed for logistics or support.

 

[choo]

^That's how I see it. In one sense I think of it as Boston getting the federal funds it generates back. Normally Boston and MA loss in giving to the Feds (even with the Big Dig). I think of this as getting a lot of concentrated and needed investment mobilization in infrastructure projects that would otherwise take decades long/if ever.

Realistically, in thinking of the greater good projects that this will accelerate and fund are:
1) Red-Blue Connector
2) DMU frequency SS to 128 on Worcester line
3) Direct rail to airport (central parking or terminal) through SBW
4) Green line central subway modernization (maybe connection to SS and onto Logan)
5) SS-NS connector

Other potential include Orange line splits Northbound. Cambridge DMU connections. Lowell Line DMU. True silver line BRT to dudley.
Around this includes housing boom in Allston, Eastie.

 

[Matthew]

Sorry to be a party pooper but can we all take a moment to reflect on the fact that freely flowing Federal funds is what created "urban renewal", the highway era, and other atrocities in our city? Once that trough opens the line of politically-connected pigs gets quite long.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

^ Seems like a lot and getting away from the Olympics focused transport. I would much prefer to see some upgrades to/from logan. TF Green just doesn't have the demand to warrant all that growth for a Boston olympics.

TF Green doesn't have a lot of demand right now, but unlike Logan, it has tremendous growth and expansion potential. Also, TF Green is best equipped to handle the shorter haul flights, just like Manchester Regional.

Every slot used on flights from BOS to places like RDU, SDF, DTW, and such like - that's a flight that could have been run just as easily from Green, especially when you can walk up to the platform and be in Boston ninety minutes after touching down (including baggage claim and waiting for your train!) all day long.

BWI is, at BEST, an hour and a half away (realistically you're looking at two and change from the tarmac to Metro Center) - and nobody is claiming that it isn't a legitimate Washington DC airport. Yet, nine times out of ten when you suggest that TF Green might be positionable in the same way as BWI, or IAD, or EWR, or any other airport well outside of a city's center - "well, that's just not possible!"

The fact is that we could never expand Logan enough to handle Olympics traffic, and even if we could, this "there must be ONLY ONE Boston airport" fixation - or worse yet, calls to use Hanscom as the second Boston airport - is not even remotely close to the best use of our limited air traffic resources.

 

[fattony]

^That's how I see it. In one sense I think of it as Boston getting the federal funds it generates back. Normally Boston and MA loss in giving to the Feds (even with the Big Dig). I think of this as getting a lot of concentrated and needed investment mobilization in infrastructure projects that would otherwise take decades long/if ever.

Realistically, in thinking of the greater good projects that this will accelerate and fund are:
1) Red-Blue Connector
2) DMU frequency SS to 128 on Worcester line
3) Direct rail to airport (central parking or terminal) through SBW
4) Green line central subway modernization (maybe connection to SS and onto Logan)
5) SS-NS connector

Other potential include Orange line splits Northbound. Cambridge DMU connections. Lowell Line DMU. True silver line BRT to dudley.
Around this includes housing boom in Allston, Eastie.

I love the enthusiasm, but the only projects there that are realistic on a <10 year timescale are Red-Blue, DMUs, some Green Line modernization, and BRT improvements. You can't build a tunnel anywhere - to Logan or through downtown Boston - on a reasonable timeline or budget for the Olympics. I don't think you need to do either if you fix the Silver Line and make Red-Blue happen. Distribution from NS, SS, and Logan would all be vastly improved without building tunnels.

 

[DominusNovus]

Sorry to be a party pooper but can we all take a moment to reflect on the fact that freely flowing Federal funds is what created "urban renewal", the highway era, and other atrocities in our city? Once that trough opens the line of politically-connected pigs gets quite long.

I agree with the basic sentiment here. But then again, its not like the city isn't already at that trough to begin with. At least with the Olympics, you can make the argument that its a truly national endeavor.