Boston 2024

Commuting Boston Student said:
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.
Click to expand...

You folks are whistling Yankee Doodle in Atlanta circa 1875


There will not be a referendum on the Olympics -- A you couldn't get the signatures and B the Legal Issues will be found to have no Public Standing

Even if you did get it on the ballot -- you would be outspent by the Convention and Visitors Bureau 100X and you would lose by 25%

Most people if they give it any though agree with Newton Olympian Aly Reisman -- "what an inspiration" for the kids"

Give that part of it a rest and let's see if the AB Forum can influence how the Olympics will look and function
 
Aquatic Complex @ Beacon Park / Turnpike Alston-Brighton -- the same solution build a temporary station and run MU's out of South Station & Olympic Flame Station
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the aquatic center is put on a college campus. I thought I heard at some point that Tufts was interested; which would make it part of GLX TOD.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I bet you could get a Red-Blue people connector between DTC and State in 9 years.
Click to expand...

Jeff -- I think that one and the Sliver Line tunnel under D with development over Silver Line Way Station is definitely a realistic target for Boston 2030 and possible for Boston 2024

However, while beneficial to overall T operations and great for commuters I don't see the two as being essential for the Olympics

Remember that outside of:
  • Aquatics [TBD] though likely at Beacon Park / Turnpike Harvard land
  • The Stadium at Widdet Circle
all the rest of the key high vis / popularity venues are already in place and more or less accessible by T -- possibly with a bus shuttle from a near by station

all of the
 
Some sort of Red-Blue would help keep the system running during the Olympic crush loads. Dwell times at Park and DTX are already rough, and harming performance. The true Red-Blue at Charles/MGH would make the biggest difference at Park and DTX by getting all of the Blue transfers from Red out of those stations. A ped walkway from DTX to State (if possible) might help the crush a bit at Park, but DTX wouldn't benefit from it.
 
fattony said:
I was thinking about LA and the history of US Olympics the other day. When LA won the bid for 1932, it wasn't the 2nd largest city in the country. In 1932 it was 5th and growing rapidly, don't know what year the bid was actually awarded, but LA was barely on the map before 1920. In 1984 it won the games uncontested. They weren't chosen by the IOC, they were the default, so it is hard to say there is precedent for LA as we know it today getting "picked" for the Olympics

Atlanta was a smaller city on the upswing and it won. Chicago and New York are BIG CITIES and were rejected. I'm certainly extrapolating from a very small data set, but Olympic history seems to favor smaller US cities experiencing an economic upswing. Boston fits that profile best out of the 4 contenders.
Click to expand...

Fattony -- 1984 was a Reagan Valedictory -- I think after the disaster IOC-wise of Moscow in 1980 they went to LA because of 1932 and President Reagan
 
whighlander said:
Jeff -- I think that one and the Sliver Line tunnel under D with development over Silver Line Way Station is definitely a realistic target for Boston 2030 and possible for Boston 2024

However, while beneficial to overall T operations and great for commuters I don't see the two as being essential for the Olympics
Click to expand...

I think you could definitely sell T under D as an airport transportation efficiency upgrade. I honestly didn't realize what a chokepoint that intersection actually is until I started riding the SL regularly to the airport to attend job-site meetings.
 
datadyne007 said:
I think you could definitely sell T under D as an airport transportation efficiency upgrade. I honestly didn't realize what a chokepoint that intersection actually is until I started riding the SL regularly to the airport to attend job-site meetings.
Click to expand...

Data -- I think not only would Massport be interested, but so would the potential developer of the air rights over Sliver Line Way Station

Indeed, between Massport and a private developer of a fairly large complex -- this might workout as a Assembly Sq type of project with the T playing a minor role in funding

Of course if they could figure out a private connection to the Ted William Tunnel so that SL Airport service never need cross city streets -- so much the better
 
The EGE said:
Let's stop pretending that, Olympics or no, we will ever see a Back Bay-BCEC service. It is not only a poor idea, but it actively hurts other better ideas.

It would have to cross every single important track on the southside. At least one of the Worcester Line tracks, crossing the 3 NEC tracks, running along the Southampton Loop track, crossing the Fairmount Line, and the Old Colony mainline. (There was talk early on about a bridge over the last two, but the Bypass Road and the Cabot Yard leads make that nigh impossible.)
......

And all of that is in addition to interfering with the entirety of current southside commuter rail and Amtrak operations.

If you want to get people from Back Bay to the Waterfront, get more of the Logan Express buses and start talking about things like Herald Street bus lanes that don't impact 40,000 daily commuters.
Click to expand...

EGE -- i think you are thinking too-much-inside-the-box

If all you need to handle is a short DMU or preferably an EMU vehicle traveling slowly -- the turns can be tight --then ramps over and away from those key line crossings are imminently doable
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Some sort of Red-Blue would help keep the system running during the Olympic crush loads.
Click to expand...
What Olympic crush loads? It's August when rushes are historically light, and 9-5 locals will be particularly likely to go on vacation for the Olympic period. Ergo, your directional AM & PM rush crushes evaporate, as they do on Marathon day and Black Friday, which are fairly close analogies, trip wise (they are technically "work days" for most people, but a lot--enough--tweak their schedule to un-crush the rushes and make it busy *everywhere*, but things generally move with the infrastructure we have)

And then, aside from the Opening & Closing Ceremonies (which fall outside of rush hour too), it is simply going to be very busy traffic metro-wide, but never crushed in any one particular place or direction or venue for long.

The key will be operating rush frequencies for 16 hours a day--which is more a staffing and maintenance-scheduling problem than it is of route-miles.

Organization (Staffing & Maintenance) Before Electronics (Core Signals) Before Concrete, and we end up not needing any new Concrete beyond what's planned now.

It think it is safest to say that we just need to do all the things now in the pipeline (GLX, DMUs), and build to a high State of Good Repair over the next 10 years, keep up with procurement and singal tech improvments (tracking, apps, un-bunching...)
 
Article from today's Globe on particular projects that are most likely to make the Olympics to-do list, though I suppose they are speculating as much as we are. Not sure what has already been discussed in this thread (it's gotten a lot of use recently), but I didn't see this article up as of yet.

It mentions:
  • South Station Expansion (and related move of USPS)
  • trains from Back Bay to South Boston
  • upgraded JFK/UMass
  • West Station (and turnpike straightening)
 
With any hope Baker will cancel South Coast Fail realizing the benefit/cost ratio doesn't support it. Obviously he couldn't redirect the funds from that project to others, but I do have hope that he will re-evaluate the priorities of transportation in the state, and the potential of olympics, particularly if we're chosen in 2017, could be impetus to move on other projects. Does anyone know if any of the Olympics-related projects would be sped up even before the IOC's decision in 2017, or will it all just be planning until then, and then a "go" if/when the IOC chooses Boston. That would leave 7 years for construction, which is a tight time table for some projects.
 
I would hope that many of the projects "in the pipeline" would see acceleration sooner rather than later, since their benefits without even considering the Olympics have already been measured. The real possibility of them being useful for the Olympics should be enough; there's no need for their use in the Olympics to be certain.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
What sort of bike infrastructure are you looking for? The master plan for cycle tracks coming down the pipe is pretty comprehensive. I don't see why the Olympics would stop that from happening.
Click to expand...


Well, how about seeing the +30 year plan happen by 2024, for instance? That would be quite a speed-up. Especially considering that the administration is this close -> <- to missing out on opportunities to fulfill the network plan as it is.
 
whighlander said:
Fattony -- 1984 was a Reagan Valedictory -- I think after the disaster IOC-wise of Moscow in 1980 they went to LA because of 1932 and President Reagan
Click to expand...

President Reagan had nothing to do with the selection of Los Angeles as host city of the 1984 Summer Olympics.

LA won by default in 1978 when its only international competitor, Teheran pulled out. It had earlier beaten out its only US competitor NY by a vote of 55-39.

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as US President in January 1981.

Obviously the choice of LA in 1978 had nothing to do with the 2 year hence disaster of the Moscow Olympics. What DID affect the decision was the financially disastrous 1976 Montreal Olympics.
 
Any Olympics in Boston are likely to be latter half of July -- early August as Boston is apparently relying on so many college campuses, and Fall semester move-in starts about the third week in August.

And what has been little mentioned is the two week Paraolympics that follow the Olympics. In essence, the Olympics and the Paraolympics become a five week event London had 165 countries and 4,200 competitors. Security will be as tight, though the spectator count is down, but the events will all be centered in Boston itself.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the aquatic center is put on a college campus. I thought I heard at some point that Tufts was interested; which would make it part of GLX TOD.
Click to expand...

Harry Mattison said:
7 years to straighten the Pike in Allston and build an Olympic Aquatics Center on the newly-cleared land seems VERY tight
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Harry. The Globe implied that they're essentially waiting for the formal announcement from Tufts. FWIW, with Turnpike construction set to wrap up in the 2021 time frame, that probably would be enough time for a temporary facility. You can build an NFL stadium in 2 years.

stellarfun said:
Any Olympics in Boston are likely to be latter half of July -- early August as Boston is apparently relying on so many college campuses, and Fall semester move-in starts about the third week in August.
Click to expand...

Weather-wise, I'd actually go for early July. Start pretty much as soon as the local schools are out, finish up before we get into the muggy season (hopefully). You could take a page out of China's playbook and do the Opening Ceremony on the evening of July 4.
 
Equilibria said:
Weather-wise, I'd actually go for early July. Start pretty much as soon as the local schools are out, finish up before we get into the muggy season (hopefully). You could take a page out of China's playbook and do the Opening Ceremony on the evening of July 4.
Click to expand...

The Boston Pops Olympics Fireworks Spectacular -- Sponsored by Suffolk Construction.
 
stellarfun said:
Any Olympics in Boston are likely to be latter half of July -- early August as Boston is apparently relying on so many college campuses, and Fall semester move-in starts about the third week in August.

And what has been little mentioned is the two week Paraolympics that follow the Olympics. In essence, the Olympics and the Paraolympics become a five week event London had 165 countries and 4,200 competitors. Security will be as tight, though the spectator count is down, but the events will all be centered in Boston itself.
Click to expand...
That's good to know. It doesn't change my traffic and transit assessments that:
1) Core commuters will preferentially take their vacations during whatever "everyone" thinks will be the busiest event days
2) The tourists who'd ordinarily come to town will dry up. Admissions at places like the MFA and MOS will be down (some "Sport" visitors will visit the "Arts & Science", but not as often as the "regular" tourists they'll displace) IIRC this happened at London's art/history museums during their Olympics.
3) Olympics traffic isn't 9-to-5 and so will naturally chose to "go" outside of the rush peaks (rising "athlete early" or sleeping in until post rush, staying out for dinner, and coming home late in the evening)
4) The real trick will be sustaining rush-like frequencies 6am to Midnight with the rush-sized fleet for something 4 weeks out of 5...which is far more a staffing-up, preventative-maintenance, training, and overtime problem than it is a route-mile problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top