Boston 2024

JohnAKeith said:
Serious question - so does this mean the DMU wouldn't happen?
Click to expand...

I think the Back Bay to Seaport DMU is still in the plans (dumb idea that it is...). Widet wouldn't go away (it's necessary for train operations), it would just be decked.
 
We did the Big Dig. I'm pretty confident we can figure out how to deck Widet Circle if we want to. The question is cost and who is paying.
 
meddlepal said:
We did the Big Dig. I'm pretty confident we can figure out how to deck Widet Circle if we want to. The question is cost and who is paying.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that we can't, the question is exactly what you said, and whether or not Boston 2024 is really thinking about those questions.
 
Oh my god please stop calling this place Midtown.

is there any indication of whether or not this is the current plan or a plan that has been proposed to government in the past? Because if it is the latter then they could be eyeing Suffolk Downs by now.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I don't think anyone is saying that we can't, the question is exactly what you said, and whether or not Boston 2024 is really thinking about those questions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the whole point is that this Olympics are supposed to be cheap. Looking at this latest design I don't see "cheap" written anywhere.
 
The Boston Globe finally clued in to the T issue at Widett. Front page of this morning's paper. Im having phone fumble fingers on a train so am not trying to embed the link to specific story. But it's top of the list on the mobile globe site. I will embed the specific link at the office if someone else hasn't already done so.

About time they got on this.
 
Shirley Leung also has an open letter to Larry Luchinno mostly encouraging him to join the 2024 effort. She hedges slightly at the end due to his famous abrasiveness.

The Luchinno issue strikes me as trivial compared to the more substantive issues
 
From the front-page article:

State transportation officials said Boston 2024 has not provided them with enough information to allow them to assess how its plans would affect the T.

“MassDOT has not, at this time, begun planning for anything related to Boston 2024’s conceptual ideas, as it is the department’s understanding that stadium plans are far from finalized,” said Michael Verseckes, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Click to expand...

Elsewhere the article notes the need to relocate the T's bus repair garage and the nearby compressed natural gas station, though they also note a location has not yet been identified. Later in the article, they wrap up with:

While that garage might be easier to relocate because it does not require train tracks, it could be difficult to move the nearby compressed natural gas station because it requires special permits. Boston 2024 says it hopes to encourage the T to abandon compressed natural gas in favor of electric buses.
Click to expand...

So Boston 2024 hasn't provided enough info to the T for the T to assess the impact on train operations, and they also haven't ID'ed a new site for the bus repairs or the compressed gas facility. And to resolve the latter, they hope to encourage the T to just scrap compressed gas.

Boston 2024 has conceptually written a bunch of checks here that would draw from Charlie Baker's T account. Everything Baker has said so far about the T turnaround plan runs completely contrary to the concept of relocating facilities that are apparently fine where they are, from a siting perspective (maybe aren't operating well inside the site, but that's a different story).
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Yeah, the whole point is that this Olympics are supposed to be cheap. Looking at this latest design I don't see "cheap" written anywhere.
Click to expand...

Would decking necessarily come under the cost umbrella of "The Olympics"? Could it not be sold as general infrastructure? Not like they would be tearing it down afterward.

Honest question. I've no idea how these things are calculated.
 
WBZ-AM had that on in the first 5 minutes of the rolling half-hour morning news this morning. This technical planning WTF? with the Widett rendering has officially gained unwelcome media traction.


Another unforced error. They can not afford to be having more of those at this stage in the game. It's death by thousand cuts, and this was a more scatterbrained cut than usual. Why release the rendering at all if it hasn't been vetted at the most basic technical level? It's not like there was a deadline of this week hanging over their heads for making the public presentation.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
WBZ-AM had that on in the first 5 minutes of the rolling half-hour morning news this morning. This technical planning WTF? with the Widett rendering has officially gained unwelcome media traction.


Another unforced error. They can not afford to be having more of those at this stage in the game. It's death by thousand cuts, and this was a more scatterbrained cut than usual. Why release the rendering at all if it hasn't been vetted at the most basic technical level? It's not like there was a deadline of this week hanging over their heads for making the public presentation.
Click to expand...

They didn't release it. The render was presented at a Gubernatorial meeting and was forced into the public by Evan Falchuk.

That doesn't excuse the technical errors, since I think Boston 2024 doesn't realize that they're serious issues. However, they didn't get the chance to respond or provide context to this rendering. It was effectively stolen from them by their opponents to be used as a prop to hurt them.
 
One possibility offered by Boston 2024 would involve building a pedestrian plaza that would sit over the tracks that run into the Red Line repair garage; that would allow trains to shuttle in and out for regular maintenance during the world’s largest sporting event.
Click to expand...

If it is public money chipping in to make that happen, then that money could be better spent elsewhere, just about anywhere.
 
Equilibria said:
They didn't release it. The render was presented at a Gubernatorial meeting and was forced into the public by Evan Falchuk.

That doesn't excuse the technical errors, since I think Boston 2024 doesn't realize that they're serious issues. However, they didn't get the chance to respond or provide context to this rendering. It was effectively stolen from them by their opponents to be used as a prop to hurt them.
Click to expand...

I support the Olympics, but I also support freedom of information. A public records request is not stealing.

Stealing would be if Falchuk actually stole the documents either physically or digitally and posted them, never filing a public records request. There is a very important distinction.
 
datadyne007 said:
I support the Olympics, but I also support freedom of information. A public records request is not stealing.

Stealing would be if Falchuk actually stole the documents either physically or digitally and posted them, never filing a public records request. There is a very important distinction.
Click to expand...

It was effectively stolen because the intent was to release documents that were not ready for public consumption. Is that a legal definition? No. It is a moral one.

I support freedom of information too. When information is being kept from the public because it contains evidence of government misdeeds, excesses, etc. or because it embarrasses officials with evidence of personal misbehavior, FOIA is great and critical.

This is not that. Evan Falchuk had no conceivable reason to FOIA that particular slide other than to short-circuit Boston 2024's vetting and technical review process and cast the bid group in the worst possible light. There's no evidence of corruption or misdeeds in it, and he had no reason to expect that there would be.

He can legally do it, but it's an @$$hole move, plain and simple.
 
Well, it's now in active media circulation and has forced the questions of the technical errors all the same. Doesn't really matter if an asshole was involved when there's teeth marks on their ass re: the issue of general technical competence in their ranks. Falchuk isn't Problem #1 this morning; why anyone on the inside thought for one second that was buildable within-budget is Problem #1...and the problem they're being questioned on.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Well, it's now in active media circulation and has forced the questions of the technical errors all the same. Doesn't really matter if an asshole was involved when there's teeth marks on their ass re: the issue of general technical competence in their ranks. Falchuk isn't Problem #1 this morning; why anyone on the inside thought for one second that was buildable within-budget is Problem #1...and the problem they're being questioned on.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree on a practical level, but when we think this way it validates bad behavior by people like Evan Falchuk. I'm a consultant. I have rough drafts that I send to public servants. Some of my work is vetted by officials before it's fully baked.

That's not to say I don't support a serious reality check about Widett (the MBTA decking just needs to be dropped and should not have been in the plan to begin with), but I also don't think that I'm fully qualified to comment, simply because I don't know what's being discussed within Boston 2024 or what technical issues have already been raised. I'm a professional in the field, so WBZ and the Boston Globe absolutely are not qualified to comment until a proposal is made that's intended for the public to hear and understand.

The discussion that's going to happen now won't be technical and it won't be helpful. It will just be more hand-wringing and Olympics-bashing. Meanwhile, Baker (who was hearing this presentation to begin with) will be placed on the defensive and will probably slam the proposal without waiting for additional work to be done to refine it. That's what Falchuk wanted, because he's all about making this fail and raising his own profile for another run for Baker's office.
 
"Boston 2024 will not ask taxpayers for any operating funds or cost of construction."

That's their line. (Please don't make me go get the actual quote.)

So, they're being honest when they say that "the Olympics(tm)" won't cost taxpayers any money.

They win on semantics! Heck of a job, Richie!
 
Equilibria said:
It was effectively stolen because the intent was to release documents that were not ready for public consumption. Is that a legal definition? No. It is a moral one.

I support freedom of information too. When information is being kept from the public because it contains evidence of government misdeeds, excesses, etc. or because it embarrasses officials with evidence of personal misbehavior, FOIA is great and critical.

This is not that. Evan Falchuk had no conceivable reason to FOIA that particular slide other than to short-circuit Boston 2024's vetting and technical review process and cast the bid group in the worst possible light. There's no evidence of corruption or misdeeds in it, and he had no reason to expect that there would be.

He can legally do it, but it's an @$$hole move, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Evan Falchuk is an asshole, Boston 2024 should be ready to answer these questions by now if they're seriously going for the Widet siting. No one forced them to go for Widet. They advertise holding the Olympics on the cheap, but they don't seem to have their shit together enough to realize that they're centerpiece is fundamentally not that.

Like data, I support the Olympics (more tacitly perhaps), but as F-Line said, this is death by a thousand cuts. It doesn't matter if Falchuk is a shithead. If they're presenting information to government officials that clearly show infrastructure that's been moved and/or decked, they should be prepared to answer questions about that plan. I mean what were they planning to tell the government officials if they were asked about the logistics?

Look, I know it's still nine years away, but this whole thing has been amateur hour as far as PR is concerned. Maybe Bostonians are unreasonable in wanting details this early, but Boston 2024 should know that Boston is like that.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Whether or not Evan Falchuk is an asshole, Boston 2024 should be ready to answer these questions by now if they're seriously going for the Widet siting. No one forced them to go for Widet. They advertise holding the Olympics on the cheap, but they don't seem to have their shit together enough to realize that they're centerpiece is fundamentally not that.
Click to expand...

From Baker and the public officials they chose to present to, yes. From the readership of the Boston Globe, without a chance to present their actual case, no. That's all I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top