Boston 2024

Potential stupid question here, but I honestly don't know:

Where is the money for the many necessary fixes, expansions, and upgrades to the T for the Olympics coming from?

Honestly, it's going to come from user fees and taxes. The indexing of the gas tax that failed is the beginning of that, but it's not the end. Baker has been cool but not cold toward VMT taxing, which at some point will replace the gas tax. AET will ultimately lead to increased tolls on I-90, and I suspect and hope that tolls will go up on other roads over the next twenty years, starting with non-Interstates like Route 2 and Route 24. Some money from those sources will go toward the MBTA. Ultimately, T fares will have to go up as well, and pretty substantially.

Does that have anything to do with the Olympics? No. That has to do with not having this week happen more frequently as deficits get larger, equipment ages, and storms like this become more frequent due to climate change. The Olympics provides a political impetus and puts pressure on people, but it's a three-week event that doesn't have much to do with the actual long-term functionality of the system.

The fact of the matter is that no one, not drivers and not transit riders, has ever paid enough for transportation - that goes back to fare restrictions on private transit companies driving them out of business all the way back in the 1930s. The system is crumbling because of it, and somehow the public has to be shocked into actually altering their mindset instead of simply blaming the "incompetent" agencies.
 
The proposed transpo cuts from Baker aren't actually cuts. They're just not going to fill unfilled jobs that were previously budgeted for. Who knows what the final bill will be though, although MBTA falls under his jurisdiction, so he'll be able to maintain the hiring freeze regardless of what the legislature says.
 
Potential stupid question here, but I honestly don't know:

Where is the money for the many necessary fixes, expansions, and upgrades to the T for the Olympics coming from?

Baker just announced a $40m CUT in transportation spending, the same week we saw the largest widespread failures of the T due to deferred maintenance. We have politicians promising us "no new taxes" and "no public money will be spent" and whatnot. The MBTA is $Billions in debt with no good, dedicated funding source. It's pretty clear that there are major financial hurdles that the MBTA is facing. If Boston is given the Olympics, where does the money for the MBTA come from? Or, alternatively, if there is no money, will Boston's "walking" Olympics ignore transit upgrades?

Important to remember: the no public money pledge is about the non-transportation elements of the bid.
 
The fact of the matter is that no one, not drivers and not transit riders, has ever paid enough for transportation - that goes back to fare restrictions on private transit companies driving them out of business all the way back in the 1930s. The system is crumbling because of it, and somehow the public has to be shocked into actually altering their mindset instead of simply blaming the "incompetent" agencies.

Agreed. This Commonwealth, and by that I mean the citizenry in its entirety, has spent decades digging itself into a deep hole on transportation. The deep dysfunctions of our government and agencies are a reflection of this, more than a cause (though there is a degree of chicken / egg feedback loop to it).

While I am open to the argument that a hard Olympics deadline might give us the collective kick in the ass needed to focus our collective minds, I am fairly pessimistic. I'm willing to have my mind changed, but I'm pessimistic. These epic failures during snowstorms are probably a better prod to getting our act together than any Olympics will be. I mean that in the sense of how historic preservationists often need a good heartbreaking demolition to really gain some political traction (i.e., destruction of Penn Station in NYC back in the day).

Most of the skeptics I've heard from in recent days have been fully cognizant of the fact that the Olympics we're bidding on will be in the summer. It's not blizzards the skeptics I hear from worry about. It's far deeper than just a blizzard or two, or the details of the Olympics bid as they evolve. It's the sense that we've let things slip so radically that we need root and branch reform. And the sense that the transit upgrades "already in the pipeline" being relied on by the Olympics bid will never even come close. And really, think about what the bid committee is saying: “we don’t need to really do anything different on transit spending, because the stuff already in the pipeline will get us prepared.” They’re saying the Commonwealth is already on the path to have an Olympics-worthy transit system by 2024, we just need to be sure we stick to the pipeline of work and really get it done by 2024. I sure as hell don’t believe that’s a sufficient pipeline of work to get us where we need to be for the sake of a good transit system (with or without the Olympics).

So my skepticism, and what I’ve heard from others even before these storms, is “what about an Olympics deadline will really make our deep-seated dysfunctions disappear?” Will we REALLY be so adverse to embarrassment on a world stage that we’ll sort ourselves out? Especially since the “sorting out” gets into really deep structural political conflicts between metro-Boston and the rest of the state. Those conflicts have been glaringly obvious for decades, and we annually fail to fix them for our own selves. So we’re going to fix them for the Olympics? Really?

If the answer were provably “yes” I would be happy to pay my share of taxes on $5B of Olympics overruns on white elephants, they’d be worth every penny if they really prompted us to do the deep sorting out we need and do the catching up on capital improvements and matching revenues to operating expenses.
 
The reason the student slum apartments were originally proposed for Olympic spectators is that all of the hotels were being used for members of the media, IOC muckety-mucks and Pooh Bahs, guests of the sponsoring businesses, etc etc. The Boston USOC bid up-front said there was little or no hotel space for anyone else.

And so little space that team officials are being housed in dorms and residence halls.

And which leaves no housing for the tens of thousands of security officials who will be brought in, and means most of the 50-60,000 'volunteers' who will work at the Games will have to commute from somewhere.

And if spectators can't find a place to sleep, that leaves Bostonians to buy the tickets and fill the seats.

_______________

The Boston Globe editorial last week pushed for the Federal government to pick up some of the operating costs (beyond just security). It would seem that the Globe, after looking at the bid documents, is not convinced that the taxpayers of Boston and Massachusetts won't be stuck with a big tab at the end..
 
Article quoting Rafael Mares of the Conservation Law Foundation, with some responses from Rich Davey:

http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingne...pics-bid-overstates-state-funding-commitments

Regarding Widett Circle:

"Boston 2024 is not proposing to move the Red Line Cabot Yard," said Davey. He said Olympics facilities could potentially be built above the rail yard and he left open the possibility that a nearby bus facility could be moved.

"That's something that we need to have a further conversation with the T about," Davey said. Other current uses of the site include Boston public works storage, the New Boston Food Market wholesale food distribution and cold storage facility in addition to tracks controlled by Amtrak.
[end quote]

From some of the discussions way up thread about the technical challenges of decking over that yard, I'm thinking that "further conversation" needs to be under way and moving along at a brisk clip. As for payment, the IOC kicks in towards the construction of temporary facilities. But the deck would get re-used for subsequent development, so it's not temporary. Who pays for that? The developer(s) of that future development? I cannot recall if I've seen this issue addressed yet.

For some of the transportation experts here, how many problems for the T and/or Amtrak does it create to lock them in to current track layout with a forest of pilings holding up a deck? I am not at all familiar with train yard operations (big understatement), but I would think I'd want to keep open the flexibility to rearrange all those sidings and switches as needs evolve. Isn't a deck going to preclude that?
 
The developer(s) of that future development? I cannot recall if I've seen this issue addressed yet.

The rumor was that Kraft would foot the bill for the deck in exchange for development rights to the area post-games.

For some of the transportation experts here, how many problems for the T and/or Amtrak does it create to lock them in to current track layout with a forest of pilings holding up a deck?

I defer to others on this, but just wanted to mention that another rumor about the deck was that it could include a flyover for the DMU-dinky Back Bay to Convention Center Shuttle. That, if true, in theory would solve one off the big issues down there. Again, I can't speak to the rest.
 
Am I reading the above right? One of you is saying, "Well, if we don't get the Olympics, then it's those who were against it who are at fault we didn't get the infrastructure improvements we need."?
 
The Globe (McMorrow) said it would have cost the developer of Columbus Center $200 million to deck the Pike.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...e-mass-pike/f2vOtfhwwlNekkjsYHeIqL/story.html

I think the Widett Circle deck is a larger deck. Though you wouldn't need much of a ventilation system assuming no diesels.

As for a flyover to cross a deck over the tracks, I think the grade may make that impractical If the flyover is 40 feet above the current track-bed, and the grade slope is 1.5 feet per 100 feet, I don't think there is enough distance on the western approach.
 
The Herald on shutting down Boston.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...able_olympics_plan_miles_of_shutdowns_detours

The Globe with a more neutral headline.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ity-meeting/pfMXqSeCv8y1HSkRqdETbM/story.html

The op-ed (below) in the Globe highlights the dimensions of the T's financial woes, and IMO, neither these nor the Olympics-related infrastructure improvements can be fixed/completed by 2024.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/05/how-fix/LcIGezjymGZEN6vh2cbrxM/story.html
 
Six Takeaways From Boston’s First Community Meeting on 2024 Olympic Bid
By Adam Vaccaro
Boston.com Staff | 02.06.15 | 9:10 AM

- Boston 2024 and City Hall are, at this point, a team.
- Transit improvement is a hot topic.
- There was more talk about a referendum.
- People didn’t like the Boston Common volleyball idea.
- John Fish made another promise about public money.
- It may be hard to quell questions about civic priorities.

Explained in detail:
http://www.boston.com/business/news...ZYZ5homwjacO/story.html?p1=menu_business_main
 
Six Takeaways From Boston’s First Community Meeting on 2024 Olympic Bid
By Adam Vaccaro
Boston.com Staff | 02.06.15 | 9:10 AM

- Boston 2024 and City Hall are, at this point, a team.
- Transit improvement is a hot topic.
- There was more talk about a referendum.
- People didn’t like the Boston Common volleyball idea.
- John Fish made another promise about public money.
- It may be hard to quell questions about civic priorities.

Explained in detail:
http://www.boston.com/business/news...ZYZ5homwjacO/story.html?p1=menu_business_main

I was concerned about the amount of negative posts in the comments section till i realized it's the same 5 people moaning on and on. It's been a rough week for transport, but it's a good place to start from.
 
I was concerned about the amount of negative posts in the comments section till i realized it's the same 5 people moaning on and on. It's been a rough week for transport, but it's a good place to start from.

I absolutely love the people holding up signs that say "Better Transit! No Boston Olympics!"

Like, the f'ing irony is off the charts.
 
Does someone know the exact situation on what the T has funded vs. proposed? I can't seem to find a simple, straight-forward, honest accounting.

The Boston 2024 people say that most projects they want/need/would like to be done are funded. Is this accurate? Everyone agrees that there are 2 projects in Dorchester that have not been funded, that's fine. What about everything else on the $5.2 billion & $15 billion lists?

According to some of what I've read online, the MA Legislature approved a transportation bill last year that included funding but then I have also read that the bill is only a "wish-list" of projects.

I don't understand!



 
Does someone know the exact situation on what the T has funded vs. proposed? I can't seem to find a simple, straight-forward, honest accounting.

The Boston 2024 people say that most projects they want/need/would like to be done are funded. Is this accurate? Everyone agrees that there are 2 projects in Dorchester that have not been funded, that's fine. What about everything else on the $5.2 billion & $15 billion lists?

According to some of what I've read online, the MA Legislature approved a transportation bill last year that included funding but then I have also read that the bill is only a "wish-list" of projects.

I don't understand!

In my understanding, the what the Legislature issued last year was a "Bond Bill." The projects listed therein are approved for bond funding - the MBTA and MassDOT can issue bonds in the Commonwealth's name to finance them.

Just because a project is approved for bond financing doesn't actually mean the bonds have been taken out - it's simply a statement that once a project is designed and planned out it's okay to borrow the money. Projects such as SSX haven't actually been funded - the bonds haven't been issued and the Federal matching grants haven't been approved and doled out, but MassDOT can move forward spending staff and contractor time planning it because the Legislature has formally deemed it worthy.

Think about when the actual funding came through for GLX within the past six months. The MBTA had performed all sorts of design and engineering work and had even started rebuilding the bridges before the bulk of the money was formally awarded. Boston 2024 can't depend only on projects that have reached that stage, since that only includes projects that are either already under construction or are due to break ground in the immediate future.

The statement that Boston 2024 is making is not that "you already have the money for this," it's "you've already made the public statement that you support doing this, so you can't say it's a white elephant you built for us alone."
 
This week has shown that this city is not up to minimum standards in many ways. One way to look at the olympics is as an opportunity to get things in order, the other is to see it as a wasted effort.

I have seen both opinions these past days.

Sch... Achieving Minimum transport standards during a week in which the City of Boston, and much of its surroundings acquired essentially an average seasons snowfall is not in any way relevant to the Olympics in the middle of the summer

Nor is it relevant to characterize the performance of the current mix of diesel and electric vehicles in cold conditions, well below the winter average temperatures -- once again not relevant to the Olympics 2024 debate

Conversely, despite the above -- a very large number of people were successfully able to view / participate in the Rolling Rally for the Superbowl Champion Patriots without the police, or EMS being overly stressed. Indeed without many complaints at all.
 
There are often performance issues with mass transit / passenger rail during high heat too.

That aside, the Boston Olympic Committee projects that it will be able to move nearly 210,000 passengers on commuter rail during a three hour period on trains originating/terminating South station, and 125,000 passengers on commuter rail to/from North Station during a three hour period.

Assuming 1,000 passengers a train (these are going to be long consists), that's 70 trains an hour to/from South station, about a train every 55 seconds.

Perhaps, my arithmetic is in error, and I'd be happy to be corrected.

So I think there ought be a very healthy skepticism about the T's ability to deliver those service levels for 15+ days running.
 

Back
Top