Boston 2024

[Equilibria]

To this point, the USPS is a federal agency, so pressure could only really come from the federal government, which a 2024 bid could put the pressure on. If not for an Olympic bid, shouldn't the federal government have an interest in seeing SSX happen anyways? From my understanding, SSX is a key piece to increasing capacity on the northeast corridor, which is one of the most profitable routes. So more capacity on a profitable route is good for Amtrak, and the better Amtrak does, the better it is for the government, no?

Yes, it should, and it's possible that some congressperson or senator from Massachusetts lays down a hammer (this is the sort of thing Ted Kennedy or Tip O'Neill did back when people understood what those jobs were actually about...) For the Olympics, that hammer will definitely come down. I don't think Amtrak is going to be the one to do it, though, since Congress kind of hates them and never misses an opportunity to show it.

 

[Arlington]

Yes, it should, and it's possible that some congressperson or senator from Massachusetts lays down a hammer (this is the sort of thing Ted Kennedy or Tip O'Neill did back when people understood what those jobs were actually about...) For the Olympics, that hammer will definitely come down. I don't think Amtrak is going to be the one to do it, though, since Congress kind of hates them and never misses an opportunity to show it.

Steven Lynch is on the House committee that oversees the Postal Service.

On the Senate side, I'd have wanted Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) to have done more to lean on the USPS to get a deal done.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yes, it should, and it's possible that some congressperson or senator from Massachusetts lays down a hammer (this is the sort of thing Ted Kennedy or Tip O'Neill did back when people understood what those jobs were actually about...) For the Olympics, that hammer will definitely come down. I don't think Amtrak is going to be the one to do it, though, since Congress kind of hates them and never misses an opportunity to show it.

It's Congress. Massachusetts more or less has had USPS's Southie relocation site gift-wrapped in a bow for years now. It's not that USPS doesn't want to move or state doesn't want to foot the bill for them to move. It's all about Washington gridlock.

This is usually something that would get rubber-stamped on autopilot. But you've got some nihilist U.S. Reps who'll booby-trap any bill to push an ideological agenda, and the USPS is a favorite target for those shennanigans. So that generic daily unaminous-consent vote to "Move this post office to a new location, rename these 5 post offices after Reagan, approve the next scheduled rate increase to the 1st class stamp, and ceremonially commend postman Jim B. Whatshisface for 60 years of dutiful employment with the Peoria Post Office by legally re-naming him to Reagan. . ." never happens, because someone always attaches a rider "...and abolish the socialist postal service and transfer its budget to the Keystone pipeline!" or something. And the Executive Branch rations its internal approvals very judiciously to avoid opening up any new attack vectors that would subject USPS to any sort of omnibus asshattery like that.

This is just one of the more mundane aspects of the gridlock in D.C. Everything is trench warfare, so even the most banal and cost-neutral of federal business doesn't get done at all in 2 of 3 branches of government...or gets attempted at all.


That's really the only holdup here. State's gotta fund SSX, but actually relocating USPS is just a formality in any Congressional term except this current one, the last one, and probably the next one. Nothing Massachusetts or the USPS can do about it except sit tight and wait for whichever election year (not this one) breaks the malarial fever down there. All parties know what has to be done.

 

[Equilibria]

That's really the only holdup here. State's gotta fund SSX, but actually relocating USPS is just a formality in any Congressional term except this current one, the last one, and probably the next one. Nothing Massachusetts or the USPS can do about it except sit tight and wait for whichever election year (not this one) breaks the malarial fever down there. All parties know what has to be done.

I recall from the article last month that the holdup really is in the negotiations, and that the sticking point isn't actually the SSX site, but the value of the mail truck parking lot next to the BCEC that USPS is giving to Massport in exchange for the land for the new facility. That valuation is all tied up in Seaport Square and Fort Point, with USPS arguing that it's a booming neighborhood and Massport arguing that the lot is surrounded on all sides by high speed highway ramps and moonscape service roads.

Congress may be an issue when the time comes to vote, but there's no agreement to vote on yet.

 

[Arlington]

Nothing Massachusetts or the USPS can do about it except sit tight and wait for whichever election year (not this one) breaks the malarial fever down there. All parties know what has to be done.

Interesting things seem to get done when one party controls both houses of Congress and the other one has the Presidency (as in 1994-96, 2006-08). A divided congress has given the obstructionists too much cover. Next term, it'll be the Republicans with no place to hide if "Congress" isn't working

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I recall from the article last month that the holdup really is in the negotiations, and that the sticking point isn't actually the SSX site, but the value of the mail truck parking lot next to the BCEC that USPS is giving to Massport in exchange for the land for the new facility. That valuation is all tied up in Seaport Square and Fort Point, with USPS arguing that it's a booming neighborhood and Massport arguing that the lot is surrounded on all sides by high speed highway ramps and moonscape service roads.

Congress may be an issue when the time comes to vote, but there's no agreement to vote on yet.

Yes...sort of. No...actually.

It's a lot of stalling over USPS's inability to even take anything upstairs to attempt an approval. First it was nitpicking about the site. Now it's nitpicking about site valuations. But whether it's wink-with, passive-aggressive, or active-aggressive with the state they know that for at minimum the rest of this term and probably for the next there's absolutely nothing they can do about approvals. And likely nothing that would be wise to do any barking up the chain asking for an approval, because that opens up a new attack vector. So they don't have a choice but to string it out as long as they can string it out by playing hard-to-get. And to use their limited options to try to pump up that land valuation as deftly as possible because a maximal overpay by the state is the only cover they've got to stick their necks out without getting punked on the approval.

This isn't a Massachusetts thing or all that specific to the South Boston sorting center...there are physical plant decisions they have to make nationwide--from the strategic to the utterly mundane--paralyzed by this same environment. I doubt the state's all that averse to a non-extreme overpay for sake of getting it done. But everyone knows this is a game USPS has to play for process reasons outside of anyone's control. If that's mutually understood and nobody gets pissy or starts holding grudges in the meantime, it's just a matter of waiting it out before they can agree to terms.

 

[DominusNovus]

Quick question: are we going to argue about the Olympics or national politics?

 

[Equilibria]

Quick question: are we going to argue about the Olympics or national politics?

One has quite a bit to do with the other, especially when you're expecting Federal assistance and funding for these infrastructure projects.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Quick question: are we going to argue about the Olympics or national politics?

Would you rather we argued about a Somerville Soccer Stadium instead?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Just because there are logical ways that something like Red-Blue or South Station Expansion gets done doesn't mean that they happen. At this moment, SSX is held up by tripartite negotiations between MassDOT, the Postal Service, and Massport, with USPS under basically no pressure to move. Where does that pressure come from, if not this? How do we ensure that under the possible/likely incoming Republican administration all of that money for DMUs and SSX doesn't just vanish into the wind? Boston has a long legacy of obvious infrastructure improvements that have simply stagnated, and that's the kind of legacy that Barcelona, for example, was able to address with an Olympics.

If there are logical ways that something gets done, and logical reasons why it should get done, with logical consequences if it doesn't get done, then I'm comfortable saying the odds are pretty damn good that something is going to get done.

If we're going to approach this from the argument that no matter how the starts and the moon and the sun align, only a message delivered down to us from on high in the form of the Olympics will ever, ever, ever get anything built - well, number one, I think that's patently ridiculous because the world doesn't work that way. Projects like Red-Blue can't be delayed forever because there's a very clear pain point where there's no longer any choice but to address the problem. That pain point might not be reached for five, ten, or one hundred years... OR it might be reached by this time next year. It's entirely a function of how many people try to make that move over the deficient options currently available, and how much people are willing to tolerate the pain (of congestion, of wasted time, of having to fall back on the alternative...) before something gives. Other projects happen for a variety of reasons - political giveaways to well-to-do constituencies, as part of insider horse trading/legal remediation deals, attempts to revitalize disenfranchised communities - but the point is that plenty of things get built, fixed, upgraded or destroyed for a whole variety of reasons, even here; and even here it shouldn't and I feel that it wouldn't take an Olympics for the majority of projects that are the target of a "sensible" Olympics bid to get built.

Which brings me to the second point: if, in fact, we assume that it will take something on the magnitude of the Olympics - how the hell do you plan on getting anything done on a sustainable basis? There's always going to be a backlog of projects that have to get built, but the number of times you have the opportunity for something on the level of an Olympics is miniscule. So if we're accepting that nothing will ever get done without that degree of push behind it, we're essentially also accepting that the list of Olympics projects is all that will ever get built in the next 50+ years.

Again, I think that's ridiculous, I think that we're perfectly capable of getting everything that a reasonable Olympics would promote finished and delivered without the Olympics, and because of that, I think the insinuation that we "need" the Olympics for reasonable improvements doesn't hold water.

As for the 2024 vs. 2036 question: You bid when you can win. A US city will be the favorite to host the 2024 Oympics for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with Boston, LA, or any other contender. Once that happens, the Games won't come back to the United States until the 2040s at the earliest. Cities like Beijing and Athens that tried multiple consecutive times can get away with that because they're the only potential host in their countries. In the US, once a city fails, it's done for a couple of cycles (see NYC and Chicago).

Perfect! Us losing the bid and one of the other US cities winning it suddenly make the time-table for transformative projects versus time to delivery line up perfectly with having the Link commemorated as the Governor Michael S. Dukakis Memorial Tunnel and sending the Olympic Torch through on a ceremonial train ahead of the opening ceremonies for Boston 2040.

It's plausible that the USOC decides to hold off, but given the enthusiasm in both Boston and LA and the IOC's current responsibility-friendly stance in the face of recent (and upcoming) embarrassment that seems unlikely. So, you can either get the very real and very substantial benefits to urbanism and infrastructure (that may in fact include some projects that AB thinks are "impossible") that come with the Games now (opposite significant costs), or you can not do that. In all likelihood, those are your choices.

As I said before, this isn't a bid that Boston's equipped to win.

Boston's not equipped to win this bid because LA has the benefit of having done it before (and if the pivot by the IOC to "reasonable" Olympics has any credibility whatsoever, they're going with the place that already has the most purpose-built infrastructure AND the proven record from prior experience), and DC has the benefit of being the seat of federal power and the national capital (and what better way to showcase your country to the world, than by hosting the Olympics from the national capital? Furthermore, being the seat of federal power, it's much easier to garner willingness to spend money down there.) If it's coming down to two finalist cities, it's coming down to those two and it's entirely on the whims of Congress to decide if they want it in their own backyard or on the other side of the country. Whichever way you slice it, Boston's already out of the running and has been for a while.

So, in conclusion-

Would you rather we argued about a Somerville Soccer Stadium instead?

 

[BostontoLancaster]

Boston's Response to the Marathon Bombing Wowed the Olympic Committee (Maybe)

Apparently how the city and state reacted in the aftermath of the attack on the marathon has impressed the IOC. It's just one anonymous source, so I'm not reading too much into it, but normally where there's smoke, there's fire. Also, this article (as well as a couple others on the topic) has correctly mentioned that this may not matter since the USOC is the one selecting which US city will represent the country in the international bidding process. That said, should the USOC elect to formally bid, I imagine they're going to go with the city it believes has the best chance to win. If the IOC really is so impressed by Boston's security, I imagine that will play a major part in the selection process and would give Boston a significant leg up.

 

[Arlington]

Well, now that we've got 2 threads going on the proposed soccer stadium(s), is this the place where I should note that the selection of Widett Circle (area) for the soccer stadium gives credence to the idea of an Olympic stadium on the same spot?

The proposed stadium is said to be north of the Olympic Stadium site, but that doesn't rule out that they'd be built together or that the Olympic Stadium would be built as a temporary donut around the permanent soccer structure.

 

[Equilibria]

The proposed stadium is said to be north of the Olympic Stadium site, but that doesn't rule out that they'd be built together or that the Olympic Stadium would be built as a temporary donut around the permanent soccer structure.

On that site it does. There isn't enough width to do the temporary seating without cantilevering it over the tracks. I think Bob Kraft had already made Boston 2024 aware of his plans a while ago - The bid book will have the soccer stadium in place and hosting preliminary rounds, with the finals in the big building. Actually, Gillette might be out of the bid entirely except as a hedge in case the Revs plans fall through.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I will say this about Widett...if somebody else wanted to write the T a blank check for a new Red Line facility by Columbia Jct. near Von Hillen St. or something you could always do what the 1 train in New York does:

*"Height".


(*DRINK!)

 

[Equilibria]

I will say this about Widett...if somebody else wanted to write the T a blank check for a new Red Line facility by Columbia Jct. near Von Hillen St. or something you could always do what the 1 train in New York does:

*"Height".


(*DRINK!)

This proposal wouldn't touch the Red Line facility, and you know it.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

This proposal wouldn't touch the Red Line facility, and you know it.

????

It was a joke about Southie's tortured relationship with "height"?


Jesus...can we just agree board-wide to use a code word or acronym for anything tangentially related to the topic of "__________ S____r S______m" from now on to keep the hair triggers at ease?

 

[thinkbiggerboston]

Well, now that we've got 2 threads going on the proposed soccer stadium(s), is this the place where I should note that the selection of Widett Circle (area) for the soccer stadium gives credence to the idea of an Olympic stadium on the same spot?

The proposed stadium is said to be north of the Olympic Stadium site, but that doesn't rule out that they'd be built together or that the Olympic Stadium would be built as a temporary donut around the permanent soccer structure.

The Widett Circle location would be pretty interesting from a transportation perspective.

As suggested in the globe a few months back, there are already thoughts of running DMU rail service from back bay to BCC via Widett circle. Use the soccer stadium as a justification for installing weekday and weekend service, and even continue DMU service from back bay to allston.

Now you have BCC, a soccer stadium, and the harvard athetic fields all joined together by a single line. This line would remain crucial post-olympics by running a second rail line into seaport and allston!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The Widett Circle location would be pretty interesting from a transportation perspective.

As suggested in the globe a few months back, there are already thoughts of running DMU rail service from back bay to BCC via Widett circle. Use the soccer stadium as a justification for installing weekday and weekend service, and even continue DMU service from back bay to allston.

Now you have BCC, a soccer stadium, and the harvard athetic fields all joined together by a single line. This line would remain crucial post-olympics by running a second rail line into seaport and allston!

I would not get too excited. The state willingly admits that it has no idea what kind of headway is achievable by the BCEC dinky because of the extreme congestion around Southampton Yard and Widett Circle. Introduce an intermediate stop right in the middle of that nerve center and it's going to make the maximum achievable headway even longer by causing 2 separate waits: one to enter the Widett loop off of Track 61 inbound when it crosses the Old Colony, Amtrak non-revenue, and Fairmount tracks...and one to exit the loop when it crosses Fairmount again. And vice versa the other direction.

You can keep the slot open for the BCEC train if it's going around the loop and out in 90 seconds. You can't if it's going around the loop and stopping for a station dwell; the act of stopping + a station dwell is going to cede priority to another train. Having to time 2 slots for each Stadium stop instead of 1 means you:

1) Can't run as often...and this was a route they were not expecting would run more than once every 25-30 mins. vs. 15 mins. on the other Indigo Routes.

2) the headway gets choppier the busier the rest of the commuter rail is...meaning, that 25 or less may be achievable well off-peak and for weekend events when 2 slots around Widett are not hard to come buy. But it'll be gaps of 32, 26, 35, 18, 29 mins. and so on and so on at rush hour when all 3 Old Colony lines are running one after the other and Foxboro is sandwiching between regular-spaced Fairmount/Indigo slots and one Amtrak after another restocking in the yard between runs. Creating long dwells at the stadium doors-closed when they're waiting for next slot.




Is that really helping the line's primary user, the BCEC, to be sacrificing both the average headways and the headway reliability like this? About the only thing this train did have a value-added over existing Seaport Transportation is that for the very limited scope of one-seat destinations it offered it did keep to a consistent clock-facing schedule and could be reliably anticipated. Don't want to deal with the Silver Line from your convention? Go grab a frogurt and meet back at the RR stop at :25 past the hour and the train will be boarding...guaranteed. That's where this thing was to hit its niche.


What happens now that the stadium in the train yard and its surrounding restaurants are in-play? The conventioneer at BCEC doesn't know if the next train's going to arrive at :18, :24, or :31 without looking at the same paper schedule the rest of the commuter rail cattle herds do every day. It's no longer clock-facing and he can't tell when you have to mosey over to the outdoor platform solely by the minute hand of his watch. He can't dip out to get a frogurt! Why wait out on a bare platform for something you need to check a schedule board to know when is arriving? That's no different from the Silver or Red Lines...so take the Silver and Red Lines.


*Maybe* on weekends it's doable under the much lower traffic levels at Southampton, and *maybe* you can open the stop for 2 hours before and after the game and bear it. But it doesn't work at all a regular-service stop for all the weekdays (and some weekends) that BCEC regular business demands its optimal schedule. And I kind of doubt it's going to make that big a pre/post-gametime difference to begin with since so few people live in the Seaport-proper and the places where the most ticketgoers proper-live are going to have them taking the Red Line instead. It's not Indigo if it's not clock-facing, and the BCEC is not going to have any use for Track 61 if it's not Indigo. Even a wider-spaced headway than the 15-minute Indigo lines is OK if its arrivals/departures are reliably countable on the minute hand without one thought of having to look at a schedule. But not a less-consistently spaced headway.

The intermediate stop and the BCEC's service plan are in direct conflict with each other and un-do each other on what small niche this route had to carve out a purpose for itself. If it gets to the point where everyone demands their transit trophy to the detriment of the other...that's the kiss of death for Track 61 happening at all. The state's just going to walk it back because running a fractured schedule doesn't serve a coherent need and somebody with deep pockets is going to walk away scorned.


So...be careful what you wish for. Stadium's still small potatoes compared to what the BCEC is going to do every day. I wouldn't give a half-second's thought to giving the stadium a big "NO" on any notions of an intermediate stop if that's what keeps the trains running on the minute hand to BCEC conventioneers.

 

[thinkbiggerboston]

Thoughts -

If shorter headways are unachievable with a stop WITHIN Widett circle, how about a red line transfer on the East side of the CR tracks? Stadiumgoers could walk a short distance (~5min tops) from the transfer to the proposed stadium. This also solves the 90-sec headway issue (DMUs can cross both sets of tracks within 90sec). B/c of silver line service this idea is somewhat redundant, but it would provide seaport with greater capacity at peak hours.

If this is unpalatable, why not build a bridge over the CR tracks east of the circle? There is ample space between tracks for piers/foundations (google maps shows trailers/cars parked here, and there is already a S. Boston bypass road overpass here). Only one track crossing is required in this scenario.

IMO, having one-seat service to a soccer stadium/fenway would be a HUGE boon to BCEC -- enough at least for consideration.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Thoughts -

If shorter headways are unachievable with a stop WITHIN Widett circle, how about a red line transfer on the East side of the CR tracks? Stadiumgoers could walk a short distance (~5min tops) from the transfer to the proposed stadium. This also solves the 90-sec headway issue (DMUs can cross both sets of tracks within 90sec). B/c of silver line service this idea is somewhat redundant, but it would provide seaport with greater capacity at peak hours.

If this is unpalatable, why not build a bridge over the CR tracks east of the circle? There is ample space between tracks for piers/foundations (google maps shows trailers/cars parked here, and there is already a S. Boston bypass road overpass here). Only one track crossing is required in this scenario.

IMO, having one-seat service to a soccer stadium/fenway would be a HUGE boon to BCEC -- enough at least for consideration.

Umm...it's called Broadway and it's already there. Walk down W. 4th bridge from the front entrance of stadium to corner of Dot Ave. Big "T" logo staring right at you 1 block up the street. There are no commuter rail tracks closer than that. The nearest tracks you can stop at away from all the commuter rail crossings is at B Street and Dot Ave....a further walk from Red and further walk from the stadium than if you'd just gotten off at Broadway and walked to the stadium.


There's no "But what if you did. . ." creativity here to split the difference. It's a simple binary choice:

-- 1 crossing slot per train = no local stop anywhere remotely close to the stadium, but the BCEC gets to keep its consistent schedules on the minute hand.

-- 2 crossing slots per train = something close to the stadium, but the schedules to BCEC vary by wild 5-10 minute swings with peak hours having no two headways the same.


This service hits such a narrow target of useful paydirt that it has to arrive or leave BCEC at the same position on the minute hand twice an hour in order to offer something that people at the Convention Center will actually ride instead of taking Silver-to-Red. Make it unpredictable and there's no point. The BCEC itself will be the ones telling the state "There's no point."

Now...a soccer stadium is only going to host events once per week while a Convention Center is going to host them day-in/day-out. Who is this service really catered to?

Add mission creep to it and it doesn't serve the BCEC, that's for sure. There's no best of both worlds here: the stadium stop and the BCEC schedule are in 1-on-1 direct competition with each other. It doesn't matter if it's big money competing with big money. Either one big-moneyed party gets shut out leaving some money very unhappy, both get the mission creep shit sandwich and one or both piles of money are very unhappy with the compromises, or the state just backs away quietly knowing there are no winners here and everyone's money is kinda unhappy but also not surprised.

And then the next day the cycle of life repeats itself with the Globe running another "Seaport Transportation in Crisis" story with a bunch of anonymous quotes from big piles of money decrying that we didn't finish the Silver Line 4 elections ago. D'oh!



That's an easy one for the state: Option C..."Bail!" Because if there are going to be no winners there might as well be no sore losers, lifelong enemies, or decisive resolutions to the burning question either. That's the "be careful what you wish for" caveat. Threading that needle wayyyyyy to finely around irreconcilable differences doesn't mean you get both sites served. It means neither do, and any notion of a Track 61 shuttle train quickly disappears from public conversation like so many proposals before it.