Boston 2024

bigeman312 said:
It would have to be passed by Congress, which is very unlikely to happen in today's age. I'm pretty certain that hasn't happened since the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Actually, before going to Congress, it would have to be allowed by the General Court.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
 
Roxxma said:
Actually, before going to Congress, it would have to be allowed by the General Court.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, too. But, as West eloquently pointed out, this does not apply when part of a state leaves to join another state:

West said:
...

And constitutional lawyers were opining that if another state were willing to take them (Block Island) in, it might not even need Congressional approval at the federal level - the US Constitution provides an express procedure for admitting new states, which is what happened when Maine split off from MA or West Virginia split from Virginia. But a patch of land seceding from one state to join another? The Constitution is mum on that concept, and where that document is mum on any given concept, the default assumption is that you can do it unless some state/local law prohibits it. And apparently the RI and MA (and CT, VT, CO, etc) laws don't prohibit it either.

...
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff.
 
Roxxma said:
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I was remembering this wrong. I admit, I didn't go look it up before posting, always a bad idea. This is a bit ambiguous on a section of state A seceding away to join state B. "nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Clearly, if Western MA split for MA and joined with CT and they called themselves something entirely new with a whole new founding constitution - call it Connectiwestmass! - they'd need Congressional approval. however, IIRC, the ambiguity is that if part of a state, like Block Island, broke off to join MA, but MA stayed on the exact same constitution and the new section joined in to that, that's not a State being formed by parts of states, that's one state absorbing some new territory. And therein lies the alleged wiggle room to avoid Congressional approval.

All moot, really. MA is so politically dysfunctional I really cannot see it happening.

For the sake of infrastructure spending and revenue raising, I would rather see energies focused on amending the MA constitution and the MBTA charter to get to a better arrangement between Boston metro and the rest. That alone would be stupendously difficult, however necessary and obvious I might think it to be. Western MA splitting off to join some other state would be even harder, and more out of reach.
 
FK4 said:
I think Western Mass brings in a lot of tourist money. The biggest drag on the state is the central part... poor, high unemployment. They're the ones who really get forgotten here.
Click to expand...

The Worcester area has lower unemployment than the Springfield area. The New Bedford/Fall River area is probably poorest.
 
West said:
This is a bit ambiguous on a section of state A seceding away to join state B. "nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the courts would interpret the "parts of states" phrase to include parts of a state breaking away from one to join another. Small communities threatening secession from their parent state is always just attention seeking noise.
 
Bostinno has an article on the T challenges of a Widett stadium:

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/...ircle-stadium-south-boston-red-line-stations/

I recall some detailed discussions way up thread - I can't find them or I'd reference them - from one of the members with deep rail knowledge. It laid out the quite substantial technical challenges of decking over the Cabot yard area. It was quite convincing, both in terms of the cost (tons of $) and potential negative impacts for the T both short-term (disruptions during construction) and long-term (inhibiting future track realignments).

In this article, Davey is repeating the hedging on venue locations. I've heard a gradual uptick in references to Suffolk Downs, from various folks with Boston 2024. I freely admit that I'm too lazy to go chase links, nor am I willing to define "gradual uptick", I'm just saying it feels like trial balloons are being floated.

I can certainly imagine Bev Scott's replacement, whoever she or he might be, reminding everyone that transportation upgrades in advance of the Olympics were meant to be only those items "already in the pipeline." Relocating or decking over Cabot Yard was not in the pipeline, and after events of the last few weeks, the new MBTA GM will have incredibly high ground to say "if Cabot Yard must get relocated, it ain't going on my budget, and if it's to be decked over, not only is it not going in my budget, it cannot be permitted to hinder T performance, since we obviously can't withstand any further problems." Davey is asserting in this article that all site work costs were included in the Widett Circle cost estimate, but I really have my doubts.

Shall we start a betting pool? Bet one: will the main stadium plan shift to Suffolk Downs (or some other spot), yes or no? Bet two: how long till that happens? I'm solidly on yes for bet one. I think the timing needs to be real soon, so I'll thrown Memorial Day out there as a first stab (built on very little beyond hunches). I guess bet three could be: if not Suffolk Downs, where else? I can't think of anywhere other than Beacon Yard.

I'm only offering embarrassment versus gloating rights for the loss/win on the wager, I don't care enough about this to bet money. Maybe I'd buy someone a beer a some point. If I am breaking some archBoston rules about online wagering, please advise and I will edit the bets out.
 
With a deck, no snow worries.

turner021015METROT72.jpg


From the Globe article on the T's failure.
 
Does anyone else remember way back in probably the 60's that they included pilings in a rail yard renovation to allow for future air rights development? I always thought this was the Cabot Yard but I don't know for sure.

If Cabot yards are used for the Olympics it will give the site direct water transit access.

Since Somerville has said no to a velodrome near Assembly Row how about building over the bus yard on the other side of the tracks? This could hold several events. After the Olympics remove the bulk of the seating and the area is left with additional sports facilities. Playing fields and park space can replace the bulk of the seating which could be added back occasionally when the facilities are used for larger events(IE Pan Am games).

In both cases you now have train and bus storage protected from the elemnents
 
The decking over Cabot Yard and extending north is partly to create a promenade to/from South Station, and partly to provide support buildings for the stadium.

When Amtrak rebuilt South Station in the 1980s, they put in the steel footings for a SST. They are still there.

The issue with Boston's bid at the moment is that there is no 'cheap' site for the Stadium. One can overcome all the 'problems' with Widett if one is willing to spend the money, but a $350-500 million stadium suddenly becomes twice the cost. And the IOC would probably think of a $1 billion Olympic Stadium that would be used for three weeks and dismantled as ridiculous excess, and Boston would be ranked low.
 
Wellington was supposed to have a shopping mall built atop it; I believe two of the tracks in the yard have extra spacing for pillars. South Station was of course designed for a tower. Lechmere is too small for air rights (though it'll be redeveloped post-GLX). None of the other yards are on land worth building on.
 
stellarfun said:
With a deck, no snow worries.

turner021015METROT72.jpg


From the Globe article on the T's failure.
Click to expand...

hmmm decking the pike is always talked about but maybe time to get aggressive about air rights over the red line... maybe a high spine #2 thru dorchester... im sure that would go over well with the community...
 
The Red Line is elevated through a lot of Dorchester... How do you deck an elevated rail line adjacent to an elevated highway?
 
Say, is anyone paying attention to the revving up bids of Rome and Paris?
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
The Red Line is elevated through a lot of Dorchester... How do you deck an elevated rail line adjacent to an elevated highway?
Click to expand...

yeah that is true, forgot about the embankment parts but wasnt actually serious in the first place... in seriousness, JFK would be a good site for a massive decking project in the future, if boston can ever get decking done on the projects already planned...
 
FK4 said:
yeah that is true, forgot about the embankment parts but wasnt actually serious in the first place... in seriousness, JFK would be a good site for a massive decking project in the future, if boston can ever get decking done on the projects already planned...
Click to expand...

Is there the demand there for that though? I can maybe see umass wanting more housing nearby, but aside from that it looks like any development would be flanked by an interstate highway on one side, and surrounded by lower density residential with the exception of BC High and Umass Boston.

It's not like you'd be reconnecting a neighborhood or anything with the air rights there, nor does the demand seem that great.



Also, Given Kraft's involvement on the project so far, and the combined lack of a "proper" soccer stadium and disdain for a temporary stadium, what is the possibility of getting a permanent soccer stadium out of all this? I haven't seen any actual proposals for this yet, but it seems like a great potential project.
 
PaulC said:
Since Somerville has said no to a velodrome near Assembly Row how about building over the bus yard on the other side of the tracks? This could hold several events. After the Olympics remove the bulk of the seating and the area is left with additional sports facilities. Playing fields and park space can replace the bulk of the seating which could be added back occasionally when the facilities are used for larger events(IE Pan Am games).

In both cases you now have train and bus storage protected from the elemnents
Click to expand...

velodrome:

there are rumors that the entire arborway bus yard site may actually become available in a few years (this in spite of the whole political thing that happened earlier this year). major development parcel right next to transit, franklin park, and the busiest bike corridor in the city... state-owned property... it has potential...
 
Equilibria said:
Never mind that the Olympics is the way you get money to fix the damn T.
Click to expand...

Well, firstly, according to Boston2024, the Olympics-specific revenues will NOT be spent on fixing the T. They've been very explicit in saying that all of the infrastructure spending that would help bring off a successful Olympics - whether T-specific or for roads/airport, whatever - were expenditures that were already "in the pipeline". That is, according to Boston 2024, the Commonwealth has already allocated the money to fix the damn T. Their theme is: "We need no true change of course."

Secondly, they've been asserting that "circling a date that can't be moved" (John Fish's formulation) will ensure that those infrastructure projects will have to get done. There is solid logic to that argument, absolutely, but just because an argument is logical does not assure that events will then play out as the logic suggests. It’s absolutely true that the 2024 date can’t be moved: it’s not absolutely certain that we will in fact sort ourselves out in response to a date certain. The Commonwealth broadly speaking (Governors, Legislatures, citizens, all of us) and the T managers have spent decades digging our collective way deeper and deeper into systemic T failures of many sorts, not just in snowstorms. Even if we truly never see a winter like this again, the T fails badly and frequently in good weather, too. A steely-eyed pronouncement of “failure is not an option” always looks good in a Hollywood movie, but the Commonwealth has zero credibility making such a promise on the T: we have in fact been opting for gradual and increasing failure for decades.

Thirdly, the list of "already in pipeline" T projects does not seem to even come close to getting the T up to a state of acceptable performance. If we did all things in the alleged pipeline, we'd end up in 2024 being 15 years behind our ideal instead of 20 behind (adjust those numbers if you disagree with my starting point). It was tactically wise in the short term for Boston 2024 to say “we just need to finish what’s in the pipeline” but from the longer term strategic view, they should have been pushing for a lot more than that if they wanted a well-functioning T to be in place by 2024.

This is where I share some of the exasperation with the “Olympics will prompt the T fix” concept (I am taking the liberty to amend slightly how you phrased it). I’ve said before and say again: if the concept of a date certain on an Olympics would really be the prompt to force us into sorting ourselves out on the T, then I am all in. But “sorting ourselves out on the T” goes way beyond the existing pipeline, it gets into the deep dysfunctions of our self-governance. This recent T collapse should act as a vastly more urgent prompt to sort ourselves out, and let’s hope it does. However, if six months from now the T’s issues are still under legislative and gubernatorial study (instead of the legislature / governor just finally reading the D’Allessandro study) and everyone’s still pointing out how unique this snowstorm was (and ignoring how poorly the T performs in good weather), that will be a pretty good indication that the Olympics are not going to be a sufficient prompt to get us to fix the T.
 
What's "in the pipeline"? GLX, DMUs, SStation Expansion, SCR. Anything else? That's not going to fix the T...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top