Boston 2024

[Equilibria]

Gosh, those are weak. They must have showed better ones to the USOC, though, and you don't employ a team of architects for a year and turn out generic watercolors. I want to see the real ones, please

Also, I'm faintly terrified if that's what they think their aquatics center is going to look like. Guys, Tufts is paying for this. It will look like a building at Tufts.

 

[shmessy]

No Olympics lane dedication, no dedicated public service ramp-up surrounding Olympics events, no special extra Olympics rail service. I'm sure there's a whole bunch of other little things that the city and the state does for any given large event - things that nobody really thinks about - all of which would be blocked by a referendum against spending on the Olympics.

And, yes, suddenly there's all sorts of legal questions as to whether Red-Blue or South Station Expansion can proceed under a no-funding-for-Olympics ban but frankly speaking if it's not one thing it's another in terms of legal challenges to transit spending so I'm not too terribly concerned over that aspect of it.

Just because the nominal promise is that no public money gets used on building a showpiece stadium doesn't mean that voting to bar public funding from being spent on this isn't going to be a very solid blow against the Olympics effort.

That having been said, I'm sure the Olympics supporters would be glad to bring such a referendum forward. After all, they can't possibly lose, right? Since you're so convinced that a referendum going against the Olympics is meaningless, the state will have either passed a meaningless referendum or have proven that there's a majority public desire for the Olympics. You win both ways, right?

Yeah, yeah, the USOC screwed up because Providence would have been waaaay better.

We all get the angle.

 

[datadyne007]

City sets public meetings on Olympic bid

By adamg on Fri, 01/09/2015 - 8:54am

Mayor Walsh is announcing a series of meetings for residents to "discuss the benefits and impact on the city" if we actually get the 2024 Olympics:

January 27 at 6:30 p.m. at Suffolk Law School, 120 Tremont St.
February 24, 6:30 p.m. - Condon School Cafeteria, 200 D St., South Boston
March 31, 6:30 p.m. - Harvard Business School, (building to be determined)
April 12, 6:30 p.m. - Roxbury Community College, 1234 Columbus Ave., Roxbury
May 19, 6:30 p.m. - Cleveland Community Center, 11 Charles St., Dorchester
June 30, 6:30 p.m. - English High School, 144 McBride St., Jamaica Plain
July 28, 6:30 p.m. - Mildred School, 5 Mildred Ave., Boston
August 25, 6:30 p.m. - Ohrenberger School, 175 West Boundary Road, W. Roxbury
September 29, 6:30 p.m. – East Boston High School, 86 White St., East Boston

Also, Boston 2024, the private group spearheading the bid, will host the first meeting of its citizens advisory group on Jan. 21 at 6 p.m. at the BCEC.

http://www.universalhub.com/2015/city-sets-public-meetings-olympic-bid

 

[Semass]

OK, so will any of these meetings include the release of the full documentation of the bid as submitted to USOC? No? Really? They are still not ready to let that out of the bag because it may cause a "competitive disadvantage"?

 

[Equilibria]

OK, so will any of these meetings include the release of the full documentation of the bid as submitted to USOC? No? Really? They are still not ready to let that out of the bag because it may cause a "competitive disadvantage"?

As much as I agree with you, I think we'll have to get used to this secrecy as part-and-parcel of the private nature of Boston 2024. Structuring the bid this way minimizes public spending, but it also means that it isn't obligated to the same level of public scrutiny as you'd see if the City or State were taking the lead.

 

[Shepard]

So here's an important question: What can we realistically expect in terms of transit and other regional improvements over the next nine years?

At a minimum, I believe that the city/regional mobility required for the Olympics would need the following four:
1) South Station expansion to support a network of southside DMUs - especially BBY-Seaport
2) Red-Blue connector
3) Finish Green Line Somerville extension
4) A real network of dedicated bus lanes on key routes and arterials

Would also be nice to have:
5) Green Line Seaport
6) Green Line Everett-Chelsea-Airport (Urban Ring alignment)

And I think you'd see a lot more support if Olympics transit acceleration could also be linked to
7) Green Line Dudley
8) Blue Line Lynn (or rapid transit DMU)
9) Orange Line Roslindale
10) North South Connector (really dreaming here, obviously)

So the question: is ANY of this feasible in the timeframe we're working in?

 

[Semass]

As much as I agree with you, I think we'll have to get used to this secrecy as part-and-parcel of the private nature of Boston 2024. Structuring the bid this way minimizes public spending, but it also means that it isn't obligated to the same level of public scrutiny as you'd see if the City or State were taking the lead.

Sure it does. Eminent domain takings cannot be conducted without the city. Mayor Walsh is a public official and any time he spends on this issue is public time. Any time the BRA spends on this is public time. Promises of city and state resources like police, fire, and EMS are promises of public resources paid for by the tax payer. Those documents need to be opened so we can see what was promised and to whom. Not to sound like Riff but what are they hiding? if they are so proud of their bid, then it should be public.

 

[MBTAddict]

So here's an important question: What can we realistically expect in terms of transit and other regional improvements over the next nine years?

At a minimum, I believe that the city/regional mobility required for the Olympics would need the following four:
1) South Station expansion to support a network of southside DMUs - especially BBY-Seaport
2) Red-Blue connector
3) Finish Green Line Somerville extension
4) A real network of dedicated bus lanes on key routes and arterials

Would also be nice to have:
5) Green Line Seaport
6) Green Line Everett-Chelsea-Airport (Urban Ring alignment)

And I think you'd see a lot more support if Olympics transit acceleration could also be linked to
7) Green Line Dudley
8) Blue Line Lynn (or rapid transit DMU)
9) Orange Line Roslindale
10) North South Connector (really dreaming here, obviously)

So the question: is ANY of this feasible in the timeframe we're working in?

I think if we got 2, 3, and 4 in the next 9 years, I'd be happy. Those 3 projects would dramatically improve the T. I might add T Under D, but I know less about that project than the others so I don't know if it is realistic or not.

 

[underground]

Personally, I don't think we're going to get any new projects that aren't already on the table. I think we're just going to get an accelerated timeline on what we're already doing. I'm also not sure we really need to do too much beyond that. Resignaling, car purchases, and stop light prioritization alone nets a pretty hefty capacity increase on Green, Orange, and Red.

I guess the big issue is, if DMUs are coming sooner rather than later: A) where is the yard; and B) how do you fit them in at South and possibly North Stations? Those are "sort of in the pipeline" projects, but they don't have finalized solutions.

I guess the other thing that would be a big bang for the buck project that's "sort of in the pipeline" would be the short term Urban Ring solution we've talked about before that's BRT running more or less in the CRT routes. I haven't heard anything from MassDOT about it specifically, but it seems easy enough (from my completely armchair perspective) to keep going with Silver Line expansion after the Chelsea job and tie it into the Key Bus Route project and a revived Cross Town Routes project.

 

[fattony]

So here's an important question: What can we realistically expect in terms of transit and other regional improvements over the next nine years?

At a minimum, I believe that the city/regional mobility required for the Olympics would need the following four:
1) South Station expansion to support a network of southside DMUs - especially BBY-Seaport
2) Red-Blue connector
3) Finish Green Line Somerville extension
4) A real network of dedicated bus lanes on key routes and arterials

Would also be nice to have:
5) Green Line Seaport
6) Green Line Everett-Chelsea-Airport (Urban Ring alignment)

And I think you'd see a lot more support if Olympics transit acceleration could also be linked to
7) Green Line Dudley
8) Blue Line Lynn (or rapid transit DMU)
9) Orange Line Roslindale
10) North South Connector (really dreaming here, obviously)

So the question: is ANY of this feasible in the timeframe we're working in?

I think the only possibilities are the 3 I bolded. Nothing else is studied/planned/designed/funded which means it doesn't stand a chance in hell of completing in 9 years time.

I would love to hear that red-blue is planned/designed far enough that they could pick it up and run, but I really don't think it will happen. Especially lacking funds.

 

[rinserepeat]

So here's an important question: What can we realistically expect in terms of transit and other regional improvements over the next nine years?

At a minimum, I believe that the city/regional mobility required for the Olympics would need the following four:
1) South Station expansion to support a network of southside DMUs - especially BBY-Seaport
2) Red-Blue connector
3) Finish Green Line Somerville extension
4) A real network of dedicated bus lanes on key routes and arterials

Would also be nice to have:
5) Green Line Seaport
6) Green Line Everett-Chelsea-Airport (Urban Ring alignment)

And I think you'd see a lot more support if Olympics transit acceleration could also be linked to
7) Green Line Dudley
8) Blue Line Lynn (or rapid transit DMU)
9) Orange Line Roslindale
10) North South Connector (really dreaming here, obviously)

So the question: is ANY of this feasible in the timeframe we're working in?

You forgot full build out of the bike network.

South station expansion has to happen regardless - but the olympics might also push up federal funding for high speed rail on the northeast corridor.

If there are events in Franklin Park, the MBTA is going to have to deal with the arborway busyard, and this will likely push up funding for BRT on blue hill and hyde park aves.

IMO, Orange line to Roslindale is entirely feasible within this timeframe (and would be one of the bigger bangs for the buck out of all of these) - but the MBTA needs to do a study, and this isn't happening unless someone high-up pushes for it.

 

[Equilibria]

Sure it does. Eminent domain takings cannot be conducted without the city. Mayor Walsh is a public official and any time he spends on this issue is public time. Any time the BRA spends on this is public time. Promises of city and state resources like police, fire, and EMS are promises of public resources paid for by the tax payer. Those documents need to be opened so we can see what was promised and to whom. Not to sound like Riff but what are they hiding? if they are so proud of their bid, then it should be public.

How much eminent domain do you expect? I think that the plan is to secure the Widett site privately, using Bob Kraft's money. Every indication we've had about that site over the past six months suggests as much. He'll buy it, he'll build the stadium on it, and he'll redevelop it (or his son will) in 2025. The village plan at UMass Boston will be open to public scrutiny just as it would have been when it was solely for UMass, but eminent domain there already happened. AFAIK, there aren't any other venues that require land acquisition.

How the mayor spends his time is open to scrutiny, yes, but that doesn't mean that the bid documents are. It needs to be better understood that Boston 2024 and its bid are not in any way legally tied to the City, the State, or to SSX, GLX, R2B and any of the other infrastructure projects that will be vetted and criticized by the public. Boston 2024 will surely be a tenant of the BCEC, the Hynes, and some other public venues, and those leases are open to question, but they will bring in money, not spend it. There will be permits to be obtained for venues and facilities, but these are handled by the BRA and Boston has no mechanism for the public to actually stop a favored development on its own (as we know well around here).

The "Olympics" are not, in this case, a monolith. You have the City, State, and Boston 2024 all coordinating, but just because there's coordination and support doesn't mean that you can demand that a non-profit throw open the vault and show you all their documents. The same privacy that Harvard enjoys in Allston or Kraft enjoys in Foxborough applies here, and again, it's a cost of having a privately-held bid.

 

[Shepard]

You forgot full build out of the bike network.

South station expansion has to happen regardless - but the olympics might also push up federal funding for high speed rail on the northeast corridor.

If there are events in Franklin Park, the MBTA is going to have to deal with the arborway busyard, and this will likely push up funding for BRT on blue hill and hyde park aves.

IMO, Orange line to Roslindale is entirely feasible within this timeframe (and would be one of the bigger bangs for the buck out of all of these) - but the MBTA needs to do a study, and this isn't happening unless someone high-up pushes for it.

You're right about the bike network - I didn't imagine many Olympics visitors getting around by bike (I could be entirely mistaken) but it's sort of beside the point. Either way, for US that would be a huge win.

Franklin Park raises the question of whether Green Line Dudley should be promptly studied - with an extension down Blue Hill Ave. Green Line service to Franklin Park would not just be great for the Olympics, but also for the future of the park and especially for the Blue Hill Ave corridor in general.

I entirely agree about Roslindale, but it fell to the bottom of my list there because the Olympics tie-in is weak.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Even if the elected officials allow those bans to go into effect, they don't stop the bid. It just makes traffic even more of a hell for those three weeks for everyone who voted for the ballot question.

Depending on how strong the IOC's demands are for dedicated facilities (e.g. Olympics lanes) and state security, it actually very well could stop the bid.

But even if it doesn't stop the bid, it does - depending on how the referendum would actually be worded - nicely deal with a lot of my principle objections to the Olympics itself.

A referendum that basically declares that Boston and the state of Massachusetts have nothing to do with and no part to play in the Olympics effort means that the city can't do anything explicitly for the Olympics. The bid effort is welcome to jump on top of anything the city is going to do, but ultimately cannot influence the direction in which the city goes and grows. The rhetoric right now is that this is going to be a sane and sustainable Olympics effort, that the cost is going to be kept down, that there's not going to be a transformative impact and there's not going to be a whole bunch of white elephant architecture left over after the end of it all. I'd like that rhetoric to be true, and passing a referendum that bars the city from getting unduly involved in the bid and indemnifies the city and the state against any cost overrun whatsoever does that.

If we pass a referendum that says the city and the state are unequivocally not part of the process, then the process has to evolve and shape itself in a way that is truly private enterprise - and the public process can continue unmolested by concerns about the impacts of the Olympics. Again, since this is supposed to be reasonable and non-transformative and outside of the three-week party in 2024 it's supposed to have little to no impact on city life, then there shouldn't be a problem in formally and legally disconnecting city planning from Olympics planning. At the end of the day, that's really my chief objection here. I don't want the city to be mired down in this. I want the planning and the growth and the steady transformation of the city from the ground up to continue. The Olympics isn't going to do that, not in my estimation - but if there was a guarantee that city planning happened independent of the Olympics, if there was a legally binding promise that the Olympics ends up no different than any other private enterprise planning to build things and host large events, then I could - if not be happy because I absolutely don't want to be anywhere near this thing - at least be content that the city will not be "transformed" by the Olympics effort.

And I know the thread generally decided that security was a tin foil hat issue and not a real thing to be concerned about, but no state money means there's not going to be any security ramp up on any level (from the reasonable increase of police presence all the way up to tin foil hat levels), and no federal money would do the same thing for federal security efforts. Regardless of how far down the scale towards police state paranoia you might feel security concerns fall, a referendum would stop the conversation before it even gets going.

That's not a terrible summary, actually. I definitely think there's morale at stake in such an election, as well as the reputations of John Fish and whoever else takes responsibility for selling the Games to the public. That effort needs to start right now, and not just the Facebook posts they've been doing for months. The bid really should have been released a month ago, and it definitely should have been released last night. Every part of it needs to be turned into a website that presents relevant facts and figures in a way that everyone can comprehend. Then, we can start talking about open houses and town halls.

Also, if a team at Elkus has been involved for this whole time, they have some renderings. Let's see those, please.

Frankly, the public effort process should have started long before the bid was submitted. There was no good reason to compile the bid in secret, not here and not in any of the other US cities. I suppose the fear was something absurd like "but what if DC steals our ideas?!," or some security paranoia, but I do believe that the public had a right to the bid information and a right to be a part of shaping the bid.

Sure, it could have turned out that the bid was impossibly boring and nobody would have bothered to comment on it, but I find that to be rather unlikely. Certainly, if the rhetoric coming out of the Boston 2024 camp is even remotely true, the bid would reflect that, and a lot of my fears would be assuaged.

Do I expect them to ever release the bid? No. I don't. I expect them to warn us about something stupid like international bid espionage and patronizingly say that nobody needs to worry about the little details, just trust us, we'll tell you what you need to know. And I expect the public process that's to begin unfolding here to be little better than a joke. We're going to be told how this is going to happen, not shown, and whatever objections are raised will be duly noted and ignored.

That scares me, but more importantly, it infuriates me.

Edit: Ok, I just noticed the Hancock & Pru are in the vaguely in the background in the 3rd render

I don't see either in any of those renders, to be honest.

Sure it does. Eminent domain takings cannot be conducted without the city. Mayor Walsh is a public official and any time he spends on this issue is public time. Any time the BRA spends on this is public time. Promises of city and state resources like police, fire, and EMS are promises of public resources paid for by the tax payer. Those documents need to be opened so we can see what was promised and to whom. Not to sound like Riff but what are they hiding? if they are so proud of their bid, then it should be public.

Actually, I didn't even think about the implications of eminent domain before you posted this, but you're absolutely right.

And that's another big thing that a referendum would accomplish - eminent domain comes off the table and now the businesses at, e.g., Widett Circle can all refuse to sell at any price. That'd be huge.

 

[Equilibria]

Depending on how strong the IOC's demands are for dedicated facilities (e.g. Olympics lanes) and state security, it actually very well could stop the bid.

But even if it doesn't stop the bid, it does - depending on how the referendum would actually be worded - nicely deal with a lot of my principle objections to the Olympics itself.

A referendum that basically declares that Boston and the state of Massachusetts have nothing to do with and no part to play in the Olympics effort means that the city can't do anything explicitly for the Olympics.

First, Boston 2024 has ruled out large-scale dedicated lanes already, and the IOC has proven receptive to that. Second, security will be handed by the Feds. The State will not pay much for it, and frankly, I'm pretty sure that a referendum that called for no State Police assistance with any major event is illegal, or at the very least would be laughed out of the Commissioner's office.

Third, the public has been promised indemnification against any overruns in the Olympic operating budget, as Boston 2024 is privately insured. Now, that doesn't handle overruns in the public projects, but you can't credibly pin budget issues with SSX, which Gov. Patrick announced well before Boston 2024 was even founded, on the Olympics. Same thing for GLX, which was mandated by the court twenty years ago.

If you remove the financial efficacy (and there wouldn't be much), good luck winning a year-long electoral campaign solely to get voters in Boston and across the Commonwealth to officially declare that they are sticks in the mud. "Vote yes if you want to be a jerk" is not a compelling campaign message.

The bid effort is welcome to jump on top of anything the city is going to do, but ultimately cannot influence the direction in which the city goes and grows.

This perfectly describes where we're at this morning. Boston 2024 is taking advantage of what the City and State are already doing.

 

[underground]

Frankly, the public effort process should have started long before the bid was submitted.

Insisting that the public should have been involved in assembling a feasibility study is ridiculous. Does John Fish need to contact the public when he's thinking about taking a shit too? Get the bid, and then sure, talking about accepting is more or less a requirement. But we're two years away.

 

[rinserepeat]

You're right about the bike network - I didn't imagine many Olympics visitors getting around by bike (I could be entirely mistaken) but it's sort of beside the point. Either way, for US that would be a huge win.

Franklin Park raises the question of whether Green Line Dudley should be promptly studied - with an extension down Blue Hill Ave. Green Line service to Franklin Park would not just be great for the Olympics, but also for the future of the park and especially for the Blue Hill Ave corridor in general.

I entirely agree about Roslindale, but it fell to the bottom of my list there because the Olympics tie-in is weak.

Olympic tie-in is weak for Roslindale - but they should really use this opportunity to seek funding for a study. If they determine it's a 30 million total cost with a savings of 1 million in operating costs and 10s of millions in immediate regional economic benefit in terms of reducing congestion around forest hills and bringing investment (and much needed housing) to roslindale square, then there would be more political will to eventually make it happen. I'm not holding my breath for it to actually happen for the olympics, but I really want to see them do a study - which is what people should be pushing for.

I highly doubt they'd bring back the trolley down blue hill - more likely they just extend the silver line and put in dedicated bus lanes.

 

[tangent]

The premise (on both the pro and con sides) of using the Olympics to spur a boondoggle of unrelated transportation improvements should be dropped. If the plan requires some specific improvements like station/sidewalk/road improvements near Olympic venues then the public should discuss how those are getting paid for with an emphasis on private money.

There are already a lot of transportation improvements in the pipeline for the next 9 years and the plan should be to simply get those done by Fall 2023/Spring 2024. If anything I would think that scheduling the Olympics in 2024 should delay the start of any disruptive transportation improvements or repairs that wouldn't be finished or would be ongoing during the games.

 

[kmp1284]

As we know from Question 4 in 2000, even if the voters pass a referendum, it doesn't necessarily mean the state legislature will honor it.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Third, the public has been promised indemnification against any overruns in the Olympic operating budget, as Boston 2024 is privately insured. Now, that doesn't handle overruns in the public projects, but you can't credibly pin budget issues with SSX, which Gov. Patrick announced well before Boston 2024 was even founded, on the Olympics. Same thing for GLX, which was mandated by the court twenty years ago.

If you remove the financial efficacy (and there wouldn't be much), good luck winning a year-long electoral campaign solely to get voters in Boston and across the Commonwealth to officially declare that they are sticks in the mud. "Vote yes if you want to be a jerk" is not a compelling campaign message.

I'll concede your first and second points.

But there's a big difference between a promise and something legally binding. You'll forgive me if I'm rather skeptical of the efficacy of a promise not to come knocking on our doorsteps for spare change later.

"Vote yes if you want to be a jerk" isn't a compelling campaign message, but "vote yes if you want to make sure Boston 2024 keeps their word" is. Whether or not they would have turned around and broken their promise not to get public assistance for whatever cost overrun would occur doesn't matter once their promise is replaced by a legal mandate that says You Shall Not Collect Public Funding. And, again, it's a win both ways thing for the Olympics PR effort - if they support asking the question, the referendum either passes (and they don't get to take any money that they weren't planning on taking anyway, thus it's a meaningless referendum) or fails and proves that the city and state really, truly want this.

Insisting that the public should have been involved in assembling a feasibility study is ridiculous. Does John Fish need to contact the public when he's thinking about taking a shit too? Get the bid, and then sure, talking about accepting is more or less a requirement. But we're two years away.

Let me take your metaphor and run with it a little. John Fish's shit, in this case, might clog up half the sewer system and result in a lot of back-flushing toilets. If that's the case, then you better believe that the public deserves to know about this thing that could impact them. On the other hand, if the hypothetical shit wouldn't have any impact outside of John Fish's corporate offices, then I really don't care about the impacts in that building and the public has no real reason to care either.