Boston 2024

CBS is not advocating waiting for any of these moments, he is trying to describe some "not-the-Olympics" event which will (or should) galvanize the political class into action.

I find his case uncompelling. The "bridge collapse" ones are too unlikely (overstating the decay and disaster), and all the likely ones already have mostly already happened and the Political Class shrugged it off (like recurring Green Line accidents, CR delays, crowding at peak times, etc.).

CBS has thus far opposed "only-the-Olympics" position (best stated by Equilibria), which holds that the Olympics offers a new and likely-effective basis for mustering the political will to follow through on all the projects that the Gas Tax (boosted by indexing) was supposed to deliver between now and 2024.

I agree with Equilibria. The disasters are short term things that favor "investigations" and short-term fixes. (aside from firing a few scapegoats, did anything change in the epoxy/bolt tunnel collapse fatality?) The Olympics is a plausible 10-year (5 election cycle) thing that will require long-term will (and repeated votes to "do" gas tax indexing via a vote, for example)

I'm not sure it's all that unlikely that we could wake up one morning to a metro region where OTP of 50% is considered "better than usual." That's not going to happen overnight, but if we continue to do nothing we're inevitably going to end up there.

But that kind of systemic failure is worlds apart from the specific failures we've had to deal with on the T circa 2014. I have no doubt that the politicians would and will continue to do nothing as the system continues to degenerate so long as the people - in spite of their vocal complaints - continue to use the system. Regular, routine and consistent failure on the order of less than 50% OTP and the sheer volume of failing switches or failing railcars that would contribute to that rises above the level of "bitch about it on the internet but show back up at the T stop tomorrow just the same." Instead, in that city, anyone with a choice to get out will be leaving. At "best" they'll just be leaving mass transit and exacerbating our traffic/congestion issues. At worst they'll be fleeing to cities that take better care of their things. Either way, as go the people so too goes the urban tax base and the economic health metrics.

You're right in that it's pretty easy for politicians to ignore and defer today. I don't believe it will be nearly as easy for them to ignore when headline after headline is about the "brain drain" to other cities, report after report of population and property values and revenue and spending all plunging, perpetual rush hour on every major street.

I don't really want to see that happen, but that's inevitable if we do nothing. The question then becomes "how much worse do things need to get before the pain is too much to keep ignoring?" It's clear that we're nowhere close to that point, but then again we're also nowhere close to 50% OTP and it's been a while since the last major bridge collapse in this country.

Maybe instead of spending time organizing an Olympics, we could sink all our time into researching magic pixie dust that we could sprinkle on the state house to get legislators to fully fund transportation projects and speed up their time lines?

Correct. Instead of sinking all our time organizing an Olympics, I want us to spend time reorganizing Beacon Hill into a form that isn't fundamentally broken. The "magic pixie dust" commentary is actually more appropriate for an Olympics, which will - at best - defer the problem of our love of deferring problems until after the international spotlight is once again off the city.
 
How do "we" reorganize Beacon Hill? Only Beacon Hill can reorganize Beacon Hill. What you mean is we need to spend our time and energy and money electing different representatives who will change the culture of the State House... which is easier said than done.
 
I commute by Amtrak from my home in Rhode Island into downtown Boston every weekday. I've been doing it for a couple of years now.
Ok, so there's another problem: Mass politicians can definitely postpone the concerns of people who don't live in their district.

The voters from the "commuter rail" suburbs, even when they do try to press their concerns, are generally outnumbered by folks whose commuting concerns are car-centric.

It takes a lot of horse trading (like building Red/Orange cars in Springfield) to create a pro-transit consensus at the state level. It took Deval Patrick 7 years of talking to his own party, and promises of South Coast Rail and CT River Valley and Cape Flyer. It takes *a lot*. On the horizon, the only thing I see to sustain that whole-state consensus would be an Olympics (and then a pile of consolation prizes spread to places not getting venues).
 
Ok, so there's another problem: Mass politicians can definitely postpone the concerns of people who don't live in their district.

The voters from the "commuter rail" suburbs, even when they do try to press their concerns, are generally outnumbered by folks whose commuting concerns are car-centric.

It takes a lot of horse trading (like building Red/Orange cars in Springfield) to create a pro-transit consensus at the state level. It took Deval Patrick 7 years of talking to his own party, and promises of South Coast Rail and CT River Valley and Cape Flyer. It takes *a lot*. On the horizon, the only thing I see to sustain that whole-state consensus would be an Olympics (and then a pile of consolation prizes spread to places not getting venues).

Yup. Remember that it takes convincing politicians from the whole state to get state funding for Boston-metro. Is Boston disproportionately populated than the rest ofthe state, of course, but that doesn't mean that elected representatives from Lenox, Bellingham, Monson, Dighton or Athol will give two shits about voting to spend their tax dollars in Boston when they get nothing out of it. Is it cranky and irrational? Maybe, but it's politics. South Coast rail is being rolled out in a stupid and shitty way, and is being set up to fail; but it may have been that stupid, shitty promise to the South Coast that got us funding for Boston's subway cars.
 
CBS - Okay. So you are arguing the Olympics is Magic Pixie Dust. And counters that we should reorganize Beacon Hill instead.

My short rebuttal is Olympics, while I agree is pretty close to Magical Pixie Dust, remains an actual real thing - there's an actual path, people organizing, and news articles about it. I would argue reorganizing Beacon Hill is far closer to being Magical Pixie Dust, aside from a few political speeches that comes every 2 years or so, there's no path or anything remote tangible. The Olympics remains, even if a shitty chance, the better hope of the two.
 
There are very few things that the government (at any level) is good at doing at long time horizons.

They need big themes. Bury the Artery, LIRR into Grand Central, Clean up Boston Harbor.

If we were any good at conceiving and executing these things pro-actively, Boston would be building its anti-flood barrier in the outer harbor. But we're not. (sadly).

I'd much rather we came up with $4b to keep the surging seas out permanently, but we'd rather pay $2b to clean up after our first "Sandy" and then spend the $4b we shoulda anyway.

But the Olympics is something we all "get". It is silly, yes, but I think it'll work just at the level that we actually deliver the infrastructure we've already committed to by 2024. That's it.
 
There are very few things that the government (at any level) is good at doing at long time horizons.

They need big themes. Bury the Artery, LIRR into Grand Central, Clean up Boston Harbor.

If we were any good at conceiving and executing these things pro-actively, Boston would be building its anti-flood barrier in the outer harbor. But we're not. (sadly).

I'd much rather we came up with $4b to keep the surging seas out permanently, but we'd rather pay $2b to clean up after our first "Sandy" and then spend the $4b we shoulda anyway.

But the Olympics is something we all "get". It is silly, yes, but I think it'll work just at the level that we actually deliver the infrastructure we've already committed to by 2024. That's it.

Arlington -- why the obsession with Flood Barriers -- the Olympics if it comes delivers something a positive theme to organize around

No one will get excited about the prospects of a Flood Barrier which might never be utilized in their lifetimes

Remember we had our Sandy in New England in 1938 -- you can still see the 11 foot high water mark in Downtown Providence inside the Biltmore Hotel -- point of reference if the 1938 Hurricane had followed the path of Sandy up to New York Harbor rather than up the Connecticut River Valley -- they would still be pumping out the Bronx Zoo

The Olympics on the other hand could provide more than 10,000 of badly needed new small unit housing, improved transportation and some new well landscaped parks with a velodrome thrown in for good measure -- and the good news is a good fraction will be paid for by private investors
 
Arlington -- why the obsession with Flood Barriers -- the Olympics if it comes delivers something a positive theme to organize around

No one will get excited about the prospects of a Flood Barrier which might never be utilized in their lifetimes

Remember we had our Sandy in New England in 1938 -- you can still see the 11 foot high water mark in Downtown Providence inside the Biltmore Hotel -- point of reference if the 1938 Hurricane had followed the path of Sandy up to New York Harbor rather than up the Connecticut River Valley -- they would still be pumping out the Bronx Zoo

The Olympics on the other hand could provide more than 10,000 of badly needed new small unit housing, improved transportation and some new well landscaped parks with a velodrome thrown in for good measure -- and the good news is a good fraction will be paid for by private investors

Reminds me of New Orleans, pre-Katrina. Laissez les Bons Temps Rouler.

Having a big party is more important than responsibly planning for the future.
 
I feel like the olympic bid and major storm surge protections are going to conflict, theres not enough money to go around for everything and neither neccesarily require the other to be built. You have the olympic bid which needs to be the ultimate focus and project for the next decade if its going to suceed, they need get the city ready and focus on projects like new construction and transit expansion and a storm barrier would take up valuable resources and money for making Boston 2024 a thing. On the other hand, now is the time to build storm protection before the public forgets about sandy and the potential for disaster. I am not a fan of the 2024 bid in the first place, and when it likely means jeopardizing things like storm surge protection and rushing to meet deadlines it just doesnt make sense....

The city needs to think about dealing with its current issues realistically instead of using 2024 as the definitive answer to its problems
 
Reminds me of New Orleans, pre-Katrina. Laissez les Bons Temps Rouler.

Having a big party is more important than responsibly planning for the future.

That's not accurate. The city and state have been discussing and working on this. The Aquarium and Spaulding Hospital incorporated this into their recent construction and probably others. There is a lot more to do but it has been started.

As far as New Orleans, I have a hard time feeling bad for them. I've watched science shows for decades warning about the flood risk and as you said all they wanted to do is party. It always irritated me that their civic pride was all about partying.
 
That's not accurate. The city and state have been discussing and working on this. The Aquarium and Spaulding Hospital incorporated this into their recent construction and probably others. There is a lot more to do but it has been started.

I think he was referring to Westie's attitude rather than to the state's.
 
The Globe has been steadily promoting the 2024 effort for months now, but in a bit of a surprise move, the Herald's editorial board came out largely in favor today as well:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2014/11/editorial_boston_2024_s_big_day

I have a feeling this is going to go to DC, however. The threat of a 2016 anti-Olympics ballot measure here in MA is too big to ignore. Why take the risk when DC offers an iconic location, solid public transit, plenty of empty land, many existing facilities, a proven ability to handle massive crowds, and most importantly, an incredibly transient population that simply doesn't care what happens to the city 10 years from now?

Every other candidate city has a major flaw--LA is old news, SF's geography makes for a less than ideal bid, Boston's anti-Olympics crowd is already making a lot of noise. What's DC's flaw?
 
What's DC's flaw?
It is too envied and hated. Too legit a target for a terrorist attack. Too resented as the imperial capital of the global hegemon. 2 states, 1 city, and the Feds that do not have a reputation for sincere, sustained cooperation. A metaphor for dysfunctional gridlock.

Recent failure to launch a DDOT-sponsored streetcar, Arlington County killing its streetcar, and protracted city-state-Feds dysfunction on a simple infill station on Potomac Yards, inability to replace the Long Bridge, and crazy NIMBYs fighting a new CSX Virginia Ave tunnel, and MD Gov Hogan's possible cancellation of the Purple Line give a hint, too, that they don't actually do infrastructure well (except Virginia's beltway HOT lanes).

Personally, I love DC (grew up in MD, college @ Georgetown, first "real job" was on K street, rode the Metro daily, read GreaterGreaterWashington faithfully, lived in Arlington VA, visit often) and still don't think of them as being able to muster the right mix of competence and global appeal to win an Olympics. If NYC and Chicago couldn't, DC looks unlikely.
 
Last edited:
It is too envied and hated. Too legit a target for a terrorist attack. Too resented as the imperial capital of the global hegemon. 2 states, 1 city, and the Feds that do not have a reputation for sincere, sustained cooperation. A metaphor for dysfunctional gridlock.

I'm inclined to agree with you on these points (except the terrorist attack bit--every Olympics is a legit target for an attack and if DC knows how to do anything well, it's security). If 2024 ends up being Berlin vs. Paris vs. DC, I have a hard time seeing DC coming out on top.

But wouldn't that still be better than the embarrassment of having voters reject the USOC's chosen city? I think the USOC would want to avoid that publicity nightmare at all costs, even if it means putting up "envied and hated" DC as its candidate.
 
It is too envied and hated. Too legit a target for a terrorist attack. Too resented as the imperial capital of the global hegemon. 2 states, 1 city, and the Feds that do not have a reputation for sincere, sustained cooperation. A metaphor for dysfunctional gridlock.

Recent failure to launch a DDOT-sponsored streetcar, Arlington County killing its streetcar, and protracted city-state-Feds dysfunction on a simple infill station on Potomac Yards, inability to replace the Long Bridge, and crazy NIMBYs fighting a new CSX Virginia Ave tunnel, and MD Gov Hogan's possible cancellation of the Purple Line give a hint, too, that they don't actually do infrastructure well (except Virginia's beltway HOT lanes).

Personally, I love DC (grew up in MD, college @ Georgetown, first "real job" was on K street, rode the Metro daily, read GreaterGreaterWashington faithfully, lived in Arlington VA, visit often) and still don't think of them as being able to muster the right mix of competence and global appeal to win an Olympics. If NYC and Chicago couldn't, DC looks unlikely.

I find the "imperial capital of the global hegemon" point a weak one when you consider that the thing which DC is the capital of is indeed the USA. If worldwide discontent towards American policies and politics is enough to sink a DC bid, then it's probably enough to sink ANY US bid. Lest we forget, the USOC feels that this time will be different because there's so much mounting pressure to bring all the corporate dollars back home for the first time in 40 years. (1984 - 2024) They feel that the time will be right to showcase the nation through whichever city they decide to inflict this thing upon.

As a celebration of America, indeed, global anti-American sentiment could be enough to send the Olympics to somewhere in Europe instead. But if that happens, it's going to be the world voting against the American city because it's an American city - no matter which city it is.

And, in fact, breaking through city-state-Fed dysfunction was cited in this very thread as one of the reasons to accept Boston 2024. Completing projects that supposedly won't ever be completed without the kind of pressure the Olympics brings was also cited as a reason to accept Boston 2024. When you figure that any opposition to DC as the capital of the nation would be opposition to the nation itself, and such opposition would also be brought against Boston, LA, or SF - there's nothing left to distinguish a DC bid (and the biggest supposed reasons to bid at all) from a Boston bid.

Oh, that's not entirely correct. Washington DC does have the advantage of being the place where it is easiest to spend federal money, being both the nation's capital and under direct Federal control. And even though the streetcars failed (because they were bad projects) and the Purple Line may fail (mostly because of pervasive NIMBY sentiment in Maryland), DC has been and continues to successfully build extensions to the Metrorail system, has identified the flaws inherent in its current system and it is committing to correcting them. Virginia continues to move forward on projects like the Crystal City transitway. WMATA has also made the tough choices and stands by its tough choice to commit to fixing their deferred maintenance problem now, before it gets any worse. And even though I may not agree with all their infrastructure decisions, there's visible evidence that they're doing something, and that already puts them well ahead of Boston.

Lest I be misinterpreted, however, I want to make one thing clear: I'm opposed to DC 2024 as well as Boston 2024. I don't want the Olympics here, there, or anywhere.
 
But wouldn't that still be better than the embarrassment of having voters reject the USOC's chosen city?

I'm curious as to how this works when the proposal is for a privately staged event. Are we now letting voters dictate to private entities whether they can plan a festival involving private money spent for activities on private property? This threat of a vote seems like a complete non-issue. Voters can say no to public money, to which planners will respond with "fine, but we weren't asking for it anyway."
 
I'm curious as to how this works when the proposal is for a privately staged event. Are we now letting voters dictate to private entities whether they can plan a festival involving private money spent for activities on private property? This threat of a vote seems like a complete non-issue. Voters can say no to public money, to which planners will respond with "fine, but we weren't asking for it anyway."

A vote to no public money for this purpose means No Public Money for This Purpose. That includes the security surrounding the event, almost certainly includes the cost of closing roads or parts of roads for the Olympics, and at least opens the door to years of legal challenges over the various routine things that the city does going into an event which might not be permissible under a public spending ban.

For all intents and purposes, the resolution would kill the Olympics.

(And there would likely be at least an additional referendum to forbid the Olympics Lanes.)
 
Boston Olympic Bid Submitted to US Committee

By Adam Vaccaro

Boston.com Staff

December 1, 2014 6:11 PM


Whether you’re for or against the 2024 Boston Olympics bid, it’s time to start crossing your fingers, as the Boston 2024 Organizing Committee has officially submitted its proposal to the United States Olympic Committee ahead of a Monday deadline.

“Boston 2024 is excited about the submission of its bid to the US Olympic Committee, which outlines the many reasons why Boston would be an ideal host for the Summer 2024 Games, including our world-class university partners; the region’s thriving innovation, technology, financial, medical and hospitality sectors; our widespread government, business, and community support; and a unique plan for a walkable, sustainable and cost-effective Olympics,” the group, which is behind the 2024 bid, said in a statement.

The USOC will decide whether to move forward with the Boston plan, or a competing bid from Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco, later this winter, most likely in January.

There would then be a period of several months during which the USOC would work closely with the chosen bid’s organizing committee to consider whether to officially submit it to the International Olympic Committee, against bids from across the world.

If Boston is selected, Boston 2024 says, that period will feature public meetings and other opportunities for input. The group has caught some flack in recent weeks for not hosting any sort of public forum prior to offering the city up to the USOC.

A group called No Boston Olympics has been fighting the bid, and local activists have also begun planning protests against the proposed Games. Critics argue that the Olympics bring little in the way of economic benefit; doubt that construction costs in Boston can be covered with $4.5 billion in private financing (as suggested by Boston 2024); and that even if cost is not an issue, the state would be better served by focusing on other priorities.

The San Francisco bid had been officially submitted as of 11 a.m. this morning, a spokesperson for that city’s organizing committee told Boston.com. Spokespeople for the D.C. and L.A. bids did not return phone calls seeking comment, but both were expected to submit their bids.

The IOC will decide on a host for the 2024 Games in 2017.

Boston.com
 
Wholesalers fear finishing last in an Olympics

Olympic stadium proposal adds to worries at Boston food complex

By Callum BorchersGlobe Staff December 02, 2014

In the predawn hours, before commuters have brought traffic on nearby Interstate 93 to a standstill, workers in white butcher smocks cleave cuts of beef and chicken, fillet fresh cod, and cold-pack oysters and other seafood for many of New England’s top restaurants and supermarkets.

This is the New Boston Food Market, a cooperative of some two dozen meat and seafood wholesalers on the edge of South Boston.

The 20-acre site — with easy access to the highway and spectacular views of the downtown skyline — is largely unnoticed by passing motorists, but it has caught the eye of the group trying to bring the Summer Olympics to Boston in 2024 as a possible site for a 60,000-seat stadium.

Though the site is barely a long javelin throw from Boston’s more celebrated business neighborhood, the Innovation District, meatpackers and fishmongers worry that their livelihood is now at risk because their jobs lack the cachet of tech entrepreneurs.

“Maybe we need to rename ourselves,” said Marion Kaiser, chief executive of Aquanor Marketing Inc., a seafood wholesaler: “New Boston Innovation Center.”

Monday marked the deadline for the local organizing committee to submit its proposal to the US Olympic Committee for how Boston would host the 2024 games; the city is among four US finalists.

Even though an Olympic stadium on their property is far from a sure thing, Kaiser and her neighbors are already gripped by a sense that powerful interests have seized control of their fate — again. The food market was evicted from Quincy Market in 1969, when Boston turned the old “meatpackers row” into the shopping strip it is today.

The New Boston Food Market also finds itself the bullseye of a wide area targeted for development.

On one side of its Widett Circle property is Boston’s municipal tow lot, where Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Revolution, reportedly is considering building a soccer stadium.

On an abutting parcel to the east is a cold storage facility that Boston-based Celtic Recycling wants to turn into a transfer station, raising fear of contamination among the food sellers.

“You look next door at the Seaport and all the new construction is nice for a lot of folks, but I’m not sure how good it is for the guys on the wharf,” said Bobby McGrath, the food market’s operations supervisor. “We can feel the redevelopment creeping closer and closer.”

The food market is a bustling industry in its own right. Every day, tens of thousands of pounds of meat, poultry, and seafood move through its warehouses, and chances are most restaurant patrons in Boston have dug into a ribeye steak or savored fresh lobster supplied by one of its vendors. It employs about 700 workers and anticipates that revenues in 2014 will approach $1 billion.

Though surrounded by other dowdy industrial sites, their second home is now hugely valuable; the assessed value alone of the three connected parcels owned by New Boston Food Market is $21 million.

The Olympics group, which calls itself Boston 2024, could make an offer for the property, but a sale would require unanimous approval of the cooperative’s 18 shareholders, said Jeffrey Corin, president of New Boston Food Market.

His snap assessment is that the shareholders would not be eager to sell.

As a private entity, the Olympics group lacks the authority to force out the wholesalers if they refuse to sell. However, the city could take the properties by eminent domain and allow Olympic organizers to build an arena there, as it did 45 years ago when it cleared the meatpackers out of Quincy Market.

A spokeswoman for Mayor Martin J. Walsh said it is too early to discuss a land taking, with so many hurdles for Boston to clear to be named the Olympic host.

The Boston 2024 committee includes some of the city’s most prominent business leaders, including construction magnate John Fish, Putnam Investments head Robert Reynolds, former Massachusetts economic development chief Dan O’Connell, and Bain Capital managing director and Boston Celtics co-owner Steve Pagliuca.

The committee declined to discuss the Widett Circle property and its owners’ concerns.

“No final decisions have been made with respect to any of the venues for the proposed 2024 Games in Boston,” Boston 2024 executive vice president Erin Murphy Rafferty said in a statement.

“Should Boston 2024 move on to the next phase, there will be a full community review process before any final decisions are made. We are committed to working with any potentially impacted neighbors in a full and transparent manner if and when we move forward in the process.”

If the city decided to take the vendors’ second home, too, there would be little they could do besides sue for maximum compensation, said Joel Faller, an attorney with McLaughlin Brothers in Boston, a law firm specializing in eminent domain.

“A land owner having their property taken by eminent domain can challenge whether it’s for a public purpose, but it’s very likely that this would survive a legal challenge,” Faller said. “The courts give great deference to public authorities to determine what’s a public necessity.”

New Boston Food Market vendors are accustomed to being asked about their property. Private developers periodically approach the vendors about selling, Corin and Kaiser said, but the answer is always the same: Not interested.

And in 2001 the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority considered taking the land by eminent domain to build a warehouse for storing trains but quickly dropped the idea when then-mayor Thomas M. Menino objected.

“We’re usually able to shrug it off,” said food market property manager John Kennedy. “But this time feels different.”

Boston is one of four US cities — along with Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington — on the US Olympic Committee’s short list of prospective hosts for 2024. The committee is expected to pick one early next year but could still decide not to bid for the Games at all.

Even if Boston were to gain the US Olympic Committee’s backing, it would still need to beat out several cities on other continents in an international selection process that will produce a winner in 2017 — seven years before the Games. In all that time, Olympic planners could pick another site for the stadium.

Corin, who is also president of Robbins Beef Co., said even the uncertainty about the future of the property makes it difficult to plan for upkeep and new projects.

Corin said the New Boston Food Market should be included in any talks about the city’s Olympic bid.

“I think we are being left out a little bit, and I don’t know why,” Corin said. “Even if they don’t have anything to say, it would be nice to be involved in the process. It’s a little disconcerting.”

Boston Globe
 

Back
Top