Boston 2024

In terms of the "unsexy" projects, we've already got a lot of things in the pipeline that will be key: signal improvements; new cars; signal priority; GLX; DMUs; continued "indigo-ing" projects; SL to Chelsea. First and foremost, the Olympics should work to keep those projects moving along. After that, what are some simple things? How about picking up the Cross Town bus program again? That'd be pretty easy. After that, Orange to Roslindale, Red/Blue, N/S, but now we're probably getting $$$.
 
It's possibly ambitious, but it's hardly unprecedented. It's basically the old Back Bay Yard into Prudential Center project.

Is it? AFAIK the train yard was removed for the Prudential Center project... not maintained.

And transportation-wise, it's a spot that makes a lot of sense. Suffolk Downs is out on the end of a line with "troublesome" road connections. Widget is on the Red, walkable from South Station, near 93 and the Pike, and closer to downtown. Beacon Park is the only other spot that could have worked that way, but evidently Harvard said no early on; they've already got their plans for that space and they don't want to change them.

Clairvoyant Bill is also looking into his crystal ball and seeing an environmental fight at Suffolk. And that's once they get past their casino litigation. Then you've got to deal with the mobilized and well organized anti-casino neighborhood groups. My guess is they'll see a stadium and think it looks like a casino. All those issues might have been enough for the Olympic Committee to walk away.

I guess I just think they should be honest and stop pretending this is going to be a cheap and easy Olympics then...
 
It's possibly ambitious, but it's hardly unprecedented. It's basically the old Back Bay Yard into Prudential Center project. And transportation-wise, it's a spot that makes a lot of sense. Suffolk Downs is out on the end of a line with "troublesome" road connections. Widget is on the Red, walkable from South Station, near 93 and the Pike, and closer to downtown. Beacon Park is the only other spot that could have worked that way, but evidently Harvard said no early on; they've already got their plans for that space and they don't want to change them.

Not really. First, the Back Bay Yard was removed for the Turnpike and the Pru. The Pru is decked over the highway and the remaining tracks, but that's not the same as a working yard, and in any case deck project after deck project has failed since the 1965. Other than the Pru, not one has gone forward.

The only saving grace here may be that if they can pull in the land inside Widett Circle, they could build the stadium and whatever else on solid ground and only deck the surrounding plazas. However, even those that aren't over tracks might need to be decked over maintenance uses.

And I'm really curious what they mean by "half-mile boulevard to South Station." First of all, it's almost a mile to the nearest point of the station from there, and it's not like that's a grand entranceway - it's all tracks. I hope they're not thinking that they'll deck all the way to the bus station and then do some sort of secondary facade thing. That would be exactly the kind of white elephant they claim to be trying to avoid.
 
Not really. First, the Back Bay Yard was removed for the Turnpike and the Pru. The Pru is decked over the highway and the remaining tracks, but that's not the same as a working yard, and in any case deck project after deck project has failed since the 1965. Other than the Pru, not one has gone forward.

Yeah, it's a completely different scope.

The only saving grace here may be that if they can pull in the land inside Widett Circle, they could build the stadium and whatever else on solid ground and only deck the surrounding plazas. However, even those that aren't over tracks might need to be decked over maintenance uses.

And yet, the DOT wants that Widett Circle interior for more yard space. One thing that the Olympics definitely shouldn't do is fuck up the T's hunt for yard space.
 
And yet, the DOT wants that Widett Circle interior for more yard space. One thing that the Olympics definitely shouldn't do is fuck up the T's hunt for yard space.

Actually, I believe they've given up and committed to Beacon Park for the layover yard. It's been pretty clear from those presentations that the MBTA sees that as a done deal.
 
Yeah, it's a completely different scope.

Is it though? You've still got the Pike, Commuter Rail, Amtrak, and the Orange Line running underneath it. It's not EXACTLY the same, but is the degree of difference really enough to say it's a completely different scope? At what point does a project go from having a lot of transit infrastructure running underneath it but doable to a lot of transit infrastructure running underneath it but not doable? Seems to me they'd both fall into the same category of "decking over something complex."
 
Is it though? You've still got the Pike, Commuter Rail, Amtrak, and the Orange Line running underneath it. It's not EXACTLY the same, but is the degree of difference really enough to say it's a completely different scope? At what point does a project go from having a lot of transit infrastructure running underneath it but doable to a lot of transit infrastructure running underneath it but not doable? Seems to me they'd both fall into the same category of "decking over something complex."

Land area for one...
 
Is it though? You've still got the Pike, Commuter Rail, Amtrak, and the Orange Line running underneath it. It's not EXACTLY the same, but is the degree of difference really enough to say it's a completely different scope? At what point does a project go from having a lot of transit infrastructure running underneath it but doable to a lot of transit infrastructure running underneath it but not doable? Seems to me they'd both fall into the same category of "decking over something complex."

In the end it makes no difference. Even a perfect replica of the Pru wouldn't be prudent as the centerpiece of the "responsible" Olympics.
 
Beacon Park will not be the only additional yard. It will only be enough for a portion of the planned expansion of service.
 
If a large sum is spent to do this along with a deck to the station and a road with a new entrance to South Station and then that whole are is developed or redeveloped before/after the olympics is it a white elephant that area is used for development and not sitting empty after the olympics?

I personally don't see an issue as long as the whole thing doesn't have to be torn down afterwards or sits empty and unused.
 
Actually, I believe they've given up and committed to Beacon Park for the layover yard. It's been pretty clear from those presentations that the MBTA sees that as a done deal.

Yes and no. The first parcels @ Widett they wanted were 1) the cold storage warehouse, and 2) the BTD tow lot. The cold storage building owners are pushing that gigantic-ass recycling center that the Boston Food Market (because of contamination risk) and the neighborhood (because of smell and avian undesireables) are fighting with the fire of a thousand suns. That whole thing is likely going down in flames costing multiple parties a lot of lawyers' fees in the process, in which case the cold storage owners don't have a whole lot of options and the state is probably going to fetch them a better price than any other redev scenario. So strategically the state hanging back and letting the owners' arrogance implode on itself may ultimately land it in their hands at a cheaper price than their original plan to eminent domain it. While Beacon Park is proceeding, they will absolutely positively grab the warehouse if it becomes available and the owners stop being jackasses. Grab it in addition to BP, because that won't be the end of their long-term storage expansion needs. And if they grab it, the BTD tow lot completes a substantial-size expansion parcel and is a lot easier to hash out with the city for a relocation. As long as the tow lot stays within walking distance of a subway stop it doesn't matter where it goes, and there's plenty of crap parcels in Dorchester on the Red Line (like here next to Andrew, or on Von Hillen St. across from the JFK entrance) that the lot could go without bothering anyone.


Boston Food Market is a more delicate situation. That facility at Widett houses the ex- meatpacking district evicted from Faneuil Hall in the early-70's. Menino barked at the T back in about 2001-02 about getting the hell out of Readville so he could redevelop it with whatever redevelopment thing he was on about at the time with his short attention span. Then booting the Food Market to the Stop & Shop warehouse at the outskirts of Readville (where they'd be terrorized by Dedham instead). To the point of telling the Globe "I can see those trains idling from my house!" (yes...he was Sarah Palin before Sarah Palin with that tantrum). The Food Market begged and pleaded the state not to do it because some of the vendors there are mom-and-pops where the increased trucking rates at a very inaccessible location like Readville would've plowed them under while raising wholesale prices for the city's restaurant industry. Menino and the BRA, of course, didn't lift a finger to facilitate...it was just an imperious and unilateral demand. So the state called his bluff and that was the end of that.

But if you're going to move the Food Market they have to be treated gently because they've been trampled upon by the city/state too many times already (including the stealth greenlight of the EIS for this controversial recycling center), they perform a pretty critical economic function for the local restaurant and catering industry, and many of the vendors that operate out of there (especially the ones serving local Chinatown eateries) are family-owned and entrepreneurial. I would think if they're going anywhere it would have to be a sweetheart deal to Marine Terminal next to all the seafood warehouses where they'll have all the same trucking access via the Haul Road and better freight rail access than they currently get at Widett (no rail siding into the facility...they unload from a refrigerator car on one of the T's track stubs by the side of the road at 2:00am).


It'd be nice to be able to downsize that too-large Beacon Park yard and fold it all in at world HQ at Widett/Southampton. That may happen yet if conditions change...they just can't proceed as if they're counting on it because that shitshow with the recycling center is purely a local dispute that could drag out for years the way all sides are enweaponed for battle. The state doesn't want any part of getting sucked into that vortex, and the BRA is being its old fuckin' useless self at making even the slightest attempt to mediate that situation. The part of the Pike realignment around the yard is just the flat highway. If they get a better deal and can downsize, that's an effortless design change to pull it in closer to the Worcester mainline and free up land. Remember...design's not final yet and because a reshaping there doesn't change the overall configuration of the new interchange other than shortening lengths of the street grid bridges, we're still a few years away from irreversible lockdown.

Full-speed ahead doesn't mean done-and-done if their #1 choices opens back up sooner. It means they're banking on the likely scenario, it's very very likely to happen, and if they hit point of non return and then the preferred parcels come up they'll proceed with BP as-planned and bank the Widett land acquisitions for later expansion. They can always dangle Readville Yard 2 for redevelopment if they want to focus on BP + Widett for consolidated southside Commuter Rail HQ's; it's a high-value natural extension of Wolcott Sq. and way better than some of Menino's quixotic later day proposals at Readville for mixed-use on the much more isolated and inaccessible Yard 5 (the bigger empty one) and the ex-Stop & Shop warehouse. The only way they would back off BP, trade in the land, and write design work-to-date at BP off as a loss is if the cold storage warehouse and BTD lot came available much much sooner...because Widett next to the existing buildings and crew quarters would still be the cheaper option on actual construction. But call it 80/20 today on BP Yard proceeding to fruition. Point is...they've got multiple options. Now and afterwards.



All this does further underscore how damn hard it's going to be to make any Olympic use of Widett Circle. You've got too many mission-critical T and Amtrak buildings at ground level...none of it in much of a cut to deck compared to those two NYC cover-over projects (really...what's that gonna do to these office buildings on Foundry St. right across from the Red Line yard to be staring across the street at a 2-1/2 story tall deck?). It's too expensive to go that much higher than the typical air rights over a depressed cut or just train height like SS bus station or the SS tower proposals. The Food Market is going to be justifiably defensive, and the odds are not high in the midst of Olympic fever that the city and BRA won't be insensitive clods with them once again. And those cold storage/recycling developers have already proven themselves uncooperative and nearly intolerable to deal with. It just ain't happening there. Olympic billions can't overcome the challenges of that site. It's best off being TransitTown hidden from view, and the last best place for the Food Market if they somebody doesn't feel like gift-wrapping them plush new gigs at the Seaport equal-or-better in every way to what they've currently got.
 
I guess I just think they should be honest and stop pretending this is going to be a cheap and easy Olympics then...

To be fair, the committee never said anything about this being a "cheap" Olympics. They said there will be no white elephants and that the public will not foot the bill for any venues or facilities. This stadium is designed to be temporary and yield developable land after the games (no white elephants) and will be privately funded by Kraft (no public money). Seems to fit the bill.

In any case, if Kraft spends $500 million on a decking project that will later leverage $1 billion in development, who cares if it's complicated?
 
In any case, if Kraft spends $500 million on a decking project that will later leverage $1 billion in development, who cares if it's complicated?

Switch those two numbers around and you've got a more accurate portrayal of how that's gonna go.

Seriously...Widett Circle is not happening. Find a different place, or continue wasting time trying to scale a near- physical and financial impossibility with fanciful hypotheticals. But in the real world, it's not happening no matter which uninformed spokesflak in the official ranks says they may be looking there.
 
It'd be nice to be able to downsize that too-large Beacon Park yard and fold it all in at world HQ at Widett/Southampton. That may happen yet if conditions change...

It won't. They want a yard at both Beacon Park and Widett for ops reasons, not space constraints. They don't want to risk an Old Colony train coming into/out of service from Beacon Park fouling the entire south station ladder. Vice-versa, if the yard was only at Widett a B&A train coming from there would have the same potential for disasters. They want to avoid having any trains traversing diagonally across the yard at all costs.
 
Could they not deck over the existing rail yards north of West Broadway and between the West Broadway and West 4th Street bridges? The deck would be at the same elevation as the bridges.

The parcel north of West Broadway could fit a stadium. The Parcel between the two bridges could house an Olympic plaza and later mixed use development. The development of these parcels would go a long way to bridging the divide between the South End and South Boston. The stadium would sit at the end of the newly re imagined and reopened Dot Ave along the Fort Point Channel. I think the half mile long Olympic Boulevard discussed is simply the currently closed stretch of Dot Ave along the water and USPS building.
 
Could they not deck over the existing rail yards north of West Broadway and between the West Broadway and West 4th Street bridges? The deck would be at the same elevation as the bridges.

The parcel north of West Broadway could fit a stadium. The Parcel between the two bridges could house an Olympic plaza and later mixed use development. The development of these parcels would go a long way to bridging the divide between the South End and South Boston. The stadium would sit at the end of the newly re imagined and reopened Dot Ave along the Fort Point Channel. I think the half mile long Olympic Boulevard discussed is simply the currently closed stretch of Dot Ave along the water and USPS building.


No...it's not below street level at all. . .

F-Line to Dudley" said:
. . .(really...what's that gonna do to these office buildings on Foundry St. right across from the Red Line yard to be staring across the street at a 2-1/2 story tall deck?). . .

Those bridges were built up high to cross the train yards and what used to be the south end of the Ft. Point Channel that stayed full-width down to about Mass Ave. Connector. This was never a cut.


And it would require razing a 2-story Red Line substation and 2-1/2 story vehicle repair building. No-go. No matter how many angles you squint at this, it ain't happening here.
 
Let me just say, as someone who absolutely opposes the Olympics in any form, I am loving the discussion over locating Olympic Stadium somewhere in the vicinity of South Station.

Either we get a whole bunch of new developable land in that area, OR this becomes one of the things (if not the thing) that sinks the bid. Frankly, I'd prefer that the bid sink - but opening that whole area up to new development is an acceptable consolation prize in my mind.

I don't think this was ever about doing the Olympics "cheaply" or "easily." And outside of certain discussion groups such as this one, I don't think it was ever about using the Olympics as the raison d'etre for knocking out a whole bunch of necessary infrastructure improvements either. I'm almost certain that this was always about prestige and statement making first, improvements a distant second. (And yes, "look at how responsible and progressive our bid is" is a statement.)

I've never felt and I certainly don't feel now that anyone involved with this bid has anything approaching altruistic intentions and I maintain that this would be the worst thing to happen to the city in 200 years if we were to win the bid. Fortunately, I don't think we're going to win the bid - the two finalist cities are likely LA (they've done this twice already) and DC (by virtue of being the nation's capital.)

So, from that context, I'd much rather see a bid that was full of impossible and unreasonable construction a la Olympic Stadium on West Broadway - because the worst thing that happens in my mind is that we end up committed to Boston 2024, and having someone else eat $2 or more in construction costs for every $1 of developable land opened up would be a nice consolation prize.
 
No...it's not below street level at all. . .



Those bridges were built up high to cross the train yards and what used to be the south end of the Ft. Point Channel that stayed full-width down to about Mass Ave. Connector. This was never a cut.


And it would require razing a 2-story Red Line substation and 2-1/2 story vehicle repair building. No-go. No matter how many angles you squint at this, it ain't happening here.

Don't build directly over the substation. A deck could be built at the bridge level. A deck does not need to built over a trench. The bridges are the ground plane of the pedestrian city at this area. The new deck gets built over the existing rail yard and makes its pedestrian connection to the two bridges. Once done the bridges no longer look or feel like bridges. It would be a similar situation to Summer street in the fort point area.
 
It would be cool to replicate something like Chicago's New East Side, but probably hard to do while keeping the yards open.
 

Back
Top