Boston 2024

[Equilibria]

Well...

This was a really well laid out set of thoughts.

My argument really isn't tied to any one project. You can definitely make a case for the Olympics on the basis that they will accelerate the timeline for a specific project like SSX, but that's not the way they help the most. What the MBTA catastrophe of the last month should make clear to Bostonians and Massachusetts legislators is that the T has been incompetently managed and underfunded for decades. It needs way more money and the legislative oomph to rebuild itself.

The problem is that, of course, none of that is coming. We've already seen Beacon Hill's response to this crisis: blame it on expansion tied to prior administrations in prior decades, and use it as a weapon against future expansion. That's it. No budget increase - Baker actually managed to cut the MBTA budget in the freaking middle of these blizzards. No leadership improvement - Baker made the GM's life so miserable that she told him to shove the job. Charlie Baker is counting on the public to forget about this in two months and that a hundred-year snowfall doesn't occur at any other point in his administration, both of which are good guesses.

The Olympics are a ten-year blizzard. They keep the attention of the public glued to infrastructure and how broken everything is. If you liked Charlie Baker's response to the MBTA this month, then by all means oppose the Olympics - these weeks have been no different from how Beacon Hill has always treated the agency. If you want hands forced and pressure placed on elected officials (and the public) to properly support infrastructure, the Olympics at least change the status quo.

By the way, the same public that doesn't want to pay for the Olympics doesn't want to pay the gas tax to fund the MBTA. It's the same people and the same selfish inclination.

 

[underground]

What's "in the pipeline"? GLX, DMUs, SStation Expansion, SCR. Anything else? That's not going to fix the T...

Plus Orange cars, Red cars, Green car rehabs, Green Line signal priority, new switches, Silver Line to Chelsea, more "Indigo Lines," infill stations on the new Indigo lines, new Green yard. In all honesty, new cars and switches get us a lot of the way there. DMUs should take some of the pressure off the parts of the CR system with the highest ridership. We just need to make sure this stuff all actually happens. Actually, the only thing that's not "in the pipeline" that would be a great addition in light of this winter is snow proofing the third rail on the Red and Orange a la Chicago's system.

 

[George_Apley]

Switches and signal priority are in the pipeline? That's great, but it's news to me.

 

[West]

What the MBTA catastrophe of the last month should make clear to Bostonians and Massachusetts legislators is that the T has been incompetently managed and underfunded for decades.

Agreed, though I’d put the underfunded in front of the incompetently managed in order of priority. That’s a quibble.

The problem is that, of course, none of that is coming.

I hope you’re wrong, but my concern is that you are absolutely right. If you’re right, that the recent blizzard won’t prompt the needed changes, then I’d argue we should not be seeking the Olympics, but rather hoping for repeated epic fails from the T. I know, I know, I should be careful what I wish for. We need for Baker and DeLeo and Rosenberg (and all the rest of Beacon Hill) to get the big fear going on their careers. I am afraid that this storm hasn’t made THEM afraid yet.

The Olympics are a ten-year blizzard. They keep the attention of the public glued to infrastructure and how broken everything is. … If you want hands forced and pressure placed on elected officials (and the public) to properly support infrastructure, the Olympics at least change the status quo.

And again, I really like the concept of this and can partially buy into it: if we win the bid, our attention will be glued, hands will be forced, etc, we’ll have to get it done. But that same “ten-year blizzard” hit Athens and Sochi, too. And the ten-year blizzard did not cause all the endemic corruption and incompetence in those societies to fade away; they arguably got worse with an Olympics to feast upon. We might not have quite the extraordinary levels of corruption that either Greece or Russia have (note that I said might not), but neither do we have anyone with the powers of a Putin to scare anyone shitless. I am less convinced than you are that the Olympics will actually change the nature of what ails us, in which case the ten-year blizzard you describe could get the same results that this three week series of storms have gotten: epic failure.

By the way, the same public that doesn't want to pay for the Olympics doesn't want to pay the gas tax to fund the MBTA. It's the same people and the same selfish inclination.

Agreed, mostly. I voted for the gas tax indexing, and am also frustrated that it failed to win voter support. But I do have sympathy for the common voter sentiment of “sort yerselves out first, you politicians, and then we’ll vote in higher revenue”. And aside from that broader concept, I am not convinced the gas tax makes any sense at all, even for funding roads. But that would take us off on another topic. Generally, though, I agree with you that the people of MA are getting what they pay for, and repeatedly show themselves not willing to pay for more than they get. We can’t put it all on the politicians.

Overall, I continue to agree with your concept about the Olympics as prompt, while continuing to be skeptical that it’ll work. If we win the bid, I will be desperately hoping to have my skepticism proven wrong.

 

[tangent]

For the location of the Olympic Stadium what about the location further down Summer St? Bracketed by Summer St (I mean it is already called "Summer" St), E Street, Pappas Way and the Reserve Channel.

Looks like just a huge lot for storing trailers and equipment with a furniture warehouse business. Having an Olympic stadium closer to the convention center, on the waterfront, near I-90 and the Ted Williams Tunnel, near the Silver Line and near where the cruise ships dock (I could see several cruise ships docked there to supplement hotel space for the games) all seem like big pluses in terms of location and context.

Either that or along Fort Point Channel taking up all of the Gillette parking lot (and then some) where the Olympic plans already called for a new pedestrian bridge over Fort Point Channel. With Bob Kraft's connections with Gillette I would think they could come up with a plan that sees Gillette build some parking garages so they could remain where they are (otherwise relocating or too much disruption would likely be a deal breaker) and just get the stadium built right next to the headquarters. Then convert it to a waterfront soccer (or football...) stadium afterwards. Could be the new "Gillette Stadium" literally at Gillette's headquarters.

So I'd say it looks like there are at least two or three different and better options than the location proposed that still keep the stadium in that general area before we start talking about Suffolk Downs or the Allston railyards which have their own downsides which mostly have to do with being away from the downtown touristy/entertainment/waterfront areas and further away from the proposed Olympic village.

 

[tangent]

Overall, I continue to agree with your concept about the Olympics as prompt, while continuing to be skeptical that it’ll work. If we win the bid, I will be desperately hoping to have my skepticism proven wrong.

I'd have to say this is the #1 alarming attitude that makes me think about actively joining the No Olympics side... I think this is the same spirit that turns the Olympics into epic boondoggles and embarrassments for humanity.

Just plan to build a few stadiums in good locations, spruce up the transportation around the venues in a targeted way, have a decent operating plan and move forward.

But it already seems like we are in the "What can I get out of it?" mode that blocks everything around Boston unless everyone is in on the take. Why can't we just focus on the merits instead of trying to trick people into doing things for all the wrong reasons? Usually the result of doing things for the wrong reasons is the wrong result.

 

[fattony]

I hope you’re wrong, but my concern is that you are absolutely right. If you’re right, that the recent blizzard won’t prompt the needed changes, then I’d argue we should not be seeking the Olympics, but rather hoping for repeated epic fails from the T. I know, I know, I should be careful what I wish for. We need for Baker and DeLeo and Rosenberg (and all the rest of Beacon Hill) to get the big fear going on their careers. I am afraid that this storm hasn’t made THEM afraid yet.

No, we should never wish for things to get worse for the T. Fixing the T isn't a matter of convincing Dad to take his credit card to Home Depot and roll up his sleeves. The things we need take months, years, and decades to complete. If something seriously breaks, like if an appreciable portion of the fleet can't be returned to service following this winter, then we just have to live with a fucked system for years. No amount of political will can speed up major things like procuring cars (OK, they can speed it a bit by buying off-the-shelf, but it is still a multi-year process).

However unlikely it seems right now, if we have a major reduction in service level then ridership could fall and you'll definitely never develop the political will to fix things.

 

[George_Apley]

^ Yup. A crippled transit agency is way more likely to turn voters and government off to public transit altogether. Pared back service, falling ridership, and economic damage. It runs the risk of triggering an end to urban planning around the transit system and a return to/continuance of king car for a very very long time.

 

[dwash59]

Switches and signal priority are in the pipeline? That's great, but it's news to me.

The only news for signal priority I've seen is a partnership with Waze that is very unclear about details.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...al-priority/KqtY7wNUPU70KbeqLxPQlO/story.html

 

[West]

No, we should never wish for things to get worse for the T. ......However unlikely it seems right now, if we have a major reduction in service level then ridership could fall and you'll definitely never develop the political will to fix things.

Agreed, and I felt bad about that bit while I was typing it.

^ Yup. A crippled transit agency is way more likely to turn voters and government off to public transit altogether. Pared back service, falling ridership, and economic damage. It runs the risk of triggering an end to urban planning around the transit system and a return to/continuance of king car for a very very long time.

Agreed again, though I don't believe we ever got out of "king car" planning, not fully. Partially, yes, but not as much as I would like.

You're both describing the risk that failures might send us into a downward cycle, a negative feedback loop of falling service and rider bitterness, in which the system eventually just implodes. You're suggesting we need to avoid getting into it, and towards that end shouldn't write cynical archBoston posts like the one I wrote. I agree that cynicism won't fix it, but I am arguing that we've had one foot in that downward cycle now for some time, and that's where my frustration comes from. The funding situation, political kicking of can, and public resentment have all been going in the wrong direction for a while now, or perhaps treading water if you're more optimistic than I. On the plus side, the ridership's been growing steadily (though as much from lack of sufficient auto band-width), and there have been service improvements on the D branch of Green, the part of the system I use daily. And the upcoming improvements will boost service levels in other places in coming years. So I do see the traction being gained on service. And I acknowledge there's been some forward motion on planning, I don't mean to say we've not shifted at all from the king car days.

I just want to see us go from a 'glass half full / glass half empty" sort of progress to a full-bore effort to fix it. Within the context of this thread, the question is: will the Olympics be the way to get us from kind-of sort-of moving in the right direction on the T, over to the full-bore effort to fix it? If we will only make that effort because of the Olympics, ok, then, I find that kind of pathetic, but I'll take it if it's the only thing that'll work. As a side benefit, I'm certain that I'll enjoy the Olympics themselves, it'd be a hoot to have them here.

I'd just rather see us do the right thing for the T because it's the right thing for the T, and for the region: environmentally, fiscally, from a moral or aesthetic perspective, you name it. Rather than do the right thing for the T because "the Olympics are coming, now we have to."

 

[George_Apley]

^ I'm not saying we shouldn't express our cynicism at all, and I don't really have an issue with your post. But I do hope that it doesn't come to pass...

I don't see us in the spiral just yet... ridership has been growing in spite of the general mediocrity of the MBTA. Many of the younger cohort in the Boston metro area don't have cars, or don't want to use them as their primary mode. But we don't want to lose these people to other cities.

The danger as I see it, is that allowing the system to flounder and collapse will do long-term deep damage to the regional economy. This is something that the politicians and businesses need to understand. Boston commerce has been revitalized in the last 25 years by companies coming into the city and investing. Public transit is a major part of the city's success. If public transit keeps failing, it will be a shock that the system won't be able to adjust to quickly. Businesses will move out of the city and the whole region could slip into a miserable situation.

That's your doomsday scenario and it's not what I expect to happen at all, but people need to wake the fuck up and realize that Boston's ability to continue to grow is inherently linked to transit.

 

[West]

...
The danger as I see it, is that allowing the system to flounder and collapse will do long-term deep damage to the regional economy. This is something that the politicians and businesses need to understand.

...

That's your doomsday scenario and it's not what I expect to happen at all, but people need to wake the fuck up and realize that Boston's ability to continue to grow is inherently linked to transit.

1,000 times this. along those lines:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...-operations/0FnoHmiriR5EDfhTsoxAmO/story.html

Good quote: "Paul Guzzi, chief executive of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, described the business community’s collective sentiment as “frustration bordering on disgust.” "

Now, what will they press for?

I'll post this over on the other thread, too, it's way more apt there than on this Boston 2024 thread.

 

[tangent]

^ Yup. A crippled transit agency is way more likely to turn voters and government off to public transit altogether. Pared back service, falling ridership, and economic damage. It runs the risk of triggering an end to urban planning around the transit system and a return to/continuance of king car for a very very long time.

As I posted in crazy transit pitches... with very capable autonomous cars being demonstrated on the roads now I think in ten or fifteen years that could very well address the primary shortcoming of the car in dense urban environments which is parking and take away the advantage that trains and buses now have in those areas.

For urban planning there still will be a reliance on subways because they are already there, but autonomous cars will actually help planners create denser downtown areas in smaller regional cities that don't have good transit and never will.

So "King car" could be a very good thing for dense urban planning as long as people are no longer behind the wheel.

 

[George_Apley]

As I posted in crazy transit pitches... with very capable autonomous cars being demonstrated on the roads now I think in ten or fifteen years that could very well address the primary shortcoming of the car in dense urban environments which is parking and take away the advantage that trains and buses now have in those areas.

For urban planning there still will be a reliance on subways because they are already there, but autonomous cars will actually help planners create denser downtown areas in smaller regional cities that don't have good transit and never will.

So "King car" could be a very good thing for dense urban planning as long as people are no longer behind the wheel.

Even if this vision comes to pass, and trains are rendered obsolete, nobody should want to take the deep economic hit that public transit collapse/reduction would have the regional economy until self-driving cartopia arrives...

 

[fattony]

As I posted in crazy transit pitches... with very capable autonomous cars being demonstrated on the roads now I think in ten or fifteen years that could very well address the primary shortcoming of the car in dense urban environments which is parking and take away the advantage that trains and buses now have in those areas.

For urban planning there still will be a reliance on subways because they are already there, but autonomous cars will actually help planners create denser downtown areas in smaller regional cities that don't have good transit and never will.

So "King car" could be a very good thing for dense urban planning as long as people are no longer behind the wheel.

You have ask whether an autonomous car will be cheaper than a taxi. If autonomous cars are cheaper than taxis by 3x or 10x, then maybe they can grow their mode-share significantly over how taxis are used today. Currently we see Uber making taxis more successful in lower density areas than previously and that is great. However, an autonomous car doesn't have any more to offer than an Uber other than 1 more seat. If the extra electronics really are significantly cheaper than a driver, then we'll see the service become accessible to people further down the economic ladder and grow in mode-share accordingly.

I see it as more evolutionary that revolutionary. I see a bigger impact on traveler/tourists and drunk driving than on commuting and shopping patterns. Maybe in the densest areas it will drive down car ownership without any increase in public transit capacity, but I don't think it can transform car-ownership dependent communities into non-ownership communities.

Taxis - human driven or autonomous - only fix the parking issue. Road geometry, conflicts with bike/ped/bus/LRV, and pollution remain just as big of problems.

 

[Savin Hill]

Olympic finances need city pledge

While the public debate over the Olympics has so far fixated on the city’s snowbound transit system and where sports venues should or should not go, local organizers have been quietly working on a less flashy but potentially more important aspect of the city’s bid: the guarantee.

In 2017, as the international competition goes forward, Mayor Martin J. Walsh will be expected to endorse Boston’s blueprint for hosting the 2024 Summer Games and with his signature make a promise that should the plan for a privately funded Olympics falter, the city — and its taxpayers — will step in and fix it.

This guarantee, which is generally required of finalists for the Games, has created difficult politics in other US bid cities, and it has become the rallying cry for opponents of Olympic bids.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...dI/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom

 

[JohnAKeith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhJg1finpyU

 

[tangent]

You have ask whether an autonomous car will be cheaper than a taxi. If autonomous cars are cheaper than taxis by 3x or 10x, then maybe they can grow their mode-share significantly over how taxis are used today. Currently we see Uber making taxis more successful in lower density areas than previously and that is great. However, an autonomous car doesn't have any more to offer than an Uber other than 1 more seat. If the extra electronics really are significantly cheaper than a driver, then we'll see the service become accessible to people further down the economic ladder and grow in mode-share accordingly.

I think you have to look at the overall resource utilization. Currently a lot of people buy cars, use them a couple hours per day and then park them the rest of the time. If you could efficiently share cars and let some third party system automatically coordinate with other people for some modest overhead fee then that should bring costs down significantly and allow for a lot more flexibility in people's access to transportation.

I think about 1/3 cost of owning a car exclusively is reasonable expectation. Figure you could share your car between at least 3 people each day for regular staggered commuting plus some ad hoc trips during the day and evening hours. Or even 50% savings by going down to 1 car and sharing that car with your spouse or friends depending on the driving needs.

So perhaps a fixed use time share type of lease for a 1/3 of the cost of having sole use of a car. You get a car for your commute between 7-8am and 5-6pm and one weekend per month, someone else gets the car between 8:15-9am and 6:15-7pm and you don't have to pay a driver since the car just drives itself. Should eventually be less expensive than zip car but the same sort of thing except with a zip car can come to you.

Anyway, this is off topic. Just a response to the previous "king car" comment.

 

[tangent]

In 2024 the Red and Orange Line will have relatively new trains (on order for 2018 ). Which speaks to the desirability to primarily focus on the Red and Orange Lines for venues and transportation. Which is what they are basically doing with the bid.

People should just remember that when talking about changes to the plan or tacking on additional things. This is the Red and Orange Line Olympics with maybe a little Silver Line thrown in.

 

[fattony]

I think you have to look at the overall resource utilization. Currently a lot of people buy cars, use them a couple hours per day and then park them the rest of the time. If you could efficiently share cars and let some third party system automatically coordinate with other people for some modest overhead fee then that should bring costs down significantly and allow for a lot more flexibility in people's access to transportation.

I think about 1/3 cost of owning a car exclusively is reasonable expectation. Figure you could share your car between at least 3 people each day for regular staggered commuting plus some ad hoc trips during the day and evening hours. Or even 50% savings by going down to 1 car and sharing that car with your spouse or friends depending on the driving needs.

So perhaps a fixed use time share type of lease for a 1/3 of the cost of having sole use of a car. You get a car for your commute between 7-8am and 5-6pm and one weekend per month, someone else gets the car between 8:15-9am and 6:15-7pm and you don't have to pay a driver since the car just drives itself. Should eventually be less expensive than zip car but the same sort of thing except with a zip car can come to you.

Anyway, this is off topic. Just a response to the previous "king car" comment.

Have you taken a taxi before? It's like you reinvent the wheel with every post.