Boston 2024

tangent said:
I can accept some dollars down the drain, even a downside risk of a few hundred millions, just not billions down the hole.

It isn't no-win, just have to get benefits in line with the costs and nail down the big venues.
Click to expand...

As long as we're talking about decking Widett, I'm with you. It sounded to me like you were talking about Boston 2024's use of infrastructure funds in general.
 
Equilibria said:
As long as we're talking about decking Widett, I'm with you. It sounded to me like you were talking about Boston 2024's use of infrastructure funds in general.
Click to expand...

I think if we are talking about things like the state contributing by building new dorms at UMass Boston (and paying approximately what new dorms should cost), or paving roads and sidewalks around venues or making sure previously purchased new red and orange line trains and switch upgrades are delivered on-time. Or even making sure the I-90 ramp realignment and West Station get built to help service the Harvard/BU venues. Then we are in the same ballpark.

I think where I have concerns are in the big ticket venues. The decking is a big ticket issue. Also in the Olympic village it is of concern that the public might be asked to buy structures and facilities that are custom built for the Olympics, then have to be rebuilt for long term use. Use of temporary structures only makes sense so far. Especially when labor costs are such a large portion of the overall costs. Getting dorms and housing only make sense if the cost is in line with what you would usually pay and if what you get is what you actually want
 
I walked over the W 4th St bridge this weekend and was reminded what a VAST area they are talking about decking. And how much STUFF is down there.

I'm usually the eternal optimist, but really, this is daunting.
 
And you know what? Frankly, these people ARE in a no-win situation.

It is an indisputable fact that a whole host of infrastructure improvements were being planned before when the Olympics bid was barely more than a twinkle in John Fish's eye.

The question that I've been asking and the question that has so far gotten me laughed at, dismissed from the conversation, but hasn't been answered is: what changed about the whole host of infrastructure improvements that suddenly, the Olympics is the only way we can hope to get them done?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like the thing that changed was that somebody decided to organize an Olympics bid. That's it.

I'm going to keep asking the question: what was the plan before the greatest traveling circus pitched tents in Boston? All the evidence says that Fish waited for an infrastructure development plan to come out before making a play at the Olympics bid and co-opting plans that were in place. So why is it that plans drafted in the era Before Olympics are suddenly absolutely dependent on Boston 2024?

Why, Olympics supporters, will nothing get repaired if the rest of us don't go along on this carnival ride with you?
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Why, Olympics supporters, will nothing get repaired if the rest of us don't go along on this carnival ride with you?
Click to expand...

OK, even though I am on the fence about the Olympics in Boston, I'll bite on this one.

Because Boston has never ever executed an infrastructure plan to schedule. They never have hard deadlines like an Olympics.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Because Boston has never ever executed an infrastructure plan to schedule. They never have hard deadlines like an Olympics.
Click to expand...

OK, but the Olympics boosters aren't arguing that things won't get done on schedule otherwise. I understand that, and agree, and I think that's a problem we ought to be addressing in a fashion other than this.

What the Olympics boosters are arguing is that without Boston 2024 - rather than having the promised infrastructure in 2024 (as we MIGHT get with the Olympics) or 2033 (as we'd probably get without it) - we would not see any part (or significant parts) of the plan executed at all.

I'm not going to pretend that without the Olympics we'd have everything we would've gotten in 2024 (although to be frank I doubt we're getting very much of the plan on time for 2024 even we all do roll over for the Olympics) - but I also find it patently ridiculous that people are suggesting that we would capital-n Never see infrastructure improvements without the Olympics.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
I'm going to keep asking the question: what was the plan before the greatest traveling circus pitched tents in Boston? All the evidence says that Fish waited for an infrastructure development plan to come out before making a play at the Olympics bid and co-opting plans that were in place. So why is it that plans drafted in the era Before Olympics are suddenly absolutely dependent on Boston 2024?

Why, Olympics supporters, will nothing get repaired if the rest of us don't go along on this carnival ride with you?
Click to expand...

I don't think Olympic backers necessarily feel the Olympics are the only way to get these infrastructure projects in play. I've actually mostly only seen assurances that the required infrastructure was happening anyway. What people have said, is that the Olympics will get the state to actually move on the promises it already made. Whether that is the case remains to be seen, but it's not the same argument as the one that informs your question.
 
JeffDowntown said:
OK, even though I am on the fence about the Olympics in Boston, I'll bite on this one.

Because Boston has never ever executed an infrastructure plan to schedule. They never have hard deadlines like an Olympics.
Click to expand...

Depends on the infrastructure at question. For the programmed MassDOT & MBTA funds - there's a hard(ish) deadline due to the involvement of Federal funds. SSX design studies, GLX, RL&OL procurements, bus procurement, SGR projects, etc.. all benefit from FTA grants. All told the Federal share is $2.4bil, which amounts to 39% of CIP funds - the Feds are not playing around here, there will be inevitable delays, cost overruns, etc., but these projects will be executed. They need to be in many cases. The Olympics might push the envelope in meeting the deadline, sure, but beyond that, there's little in the way of substantive benefit to our transit infrastructure (which I know is only a part of 2024's infra plan, but the one I held the highest hopes for).


For my part, I had hoped that 2024 could provide a good platform to advocate for funding some of the projects identified by MassDOT's 21st Century.....planning doc, but were not funded in the 2013 legislation - aka Red-Blue. But that appears not to be the case. I'd love to see handball come to Boston (seriously guys, phenomenal sport) and see a proper soccer stadium, but beyond that...eh
 
CantabAmager said:
For my part, I had hoped that 2024 could provide a good platform to advocate for funding some of the projects identified by MassDOT's 21st Century.....planning doc, but were not funded in the 2013 legislation - aka Red-Blue. But that appears not to be the case. I'd love to see handball come to Boston (seriously guys, phenomenal sport) and see a proper soccer stadium, but beyond that...eh
Click to expand...

Maybe some accelerated plans for nice dorms for UMass Boston... Which considering the power of the private universities in Boston... has been a long time coming. Maybe they create a nice mixed use waterfront neighborhood out of the old bay side expo center. Soccer stadium. Some impetus to sort out the West Station and new Harvard University owned development there. Plenty of potential for some good outcomes without breaking the bank.

Oh ya and the biggest celebration of sports in the world
 
Last edited:
what changed about the whole host of infrastructure improvements that suddenly, the Olympics is the only way we can hope to get them done?
Click to expand...

Green Line Extension to Medford Opening 2012
 
underground said:
Green Line Extension to Medford Opening 2012
Click to expand...

Currently under construction. The new target date is 2020, a realistic expectation would be 2021, and I'm willing to bet that I will be able to board a train to Union Square in Somerville in 2023.

"Business as usual" doesn't mean that nothing ever gets done, it means that things get delayed and over-studied and used as political footballs. That's a huge problem that the Olympics can't fix and won't fix.

Pretending that only the Olympics will get us the overdue projects done that we needed done a long time ago is dishonest. And it's still a question as to whether the Olympics is the difference between repairing everything by 2024 or by 2033 - things will get fixed when we reach the pain point. Should they have all been fixed a decade ago? Absolutely, but we can't roll back the clock. Do I think the vast majority of people would prefer these projects be delayed another decade to escape the burden of an Olympics in Boston? I do. Everything's already late, what difference is there really between a project 15 years overdue and one 24 years overdue?

Eventually is something quite different than never. One of those things is business as usual and it's not "never."
 
Ridiculous foot-dragging on the part of the State, MBTA, and MassDOT aside, Somerville's suit forced GLX. It wasn't funded prior, not when the 2012 deadline was assigned, but now is - as are the other projects we've discussed. 2024 thinks they'll be enough, so it's not like they're coming to the table with any substantive transit improvements that aren't part of the current CIP or MassDOT's 10 year "vision".

As Tangent's pointed out - West Station might be a project to watch if the Olympics come to town, but as of now 2024 is no different than business as usual in regards to transportation.
 
CantabAmager said:
but as of now 2024 is no different than business as usual in regards to transportation.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are serious issues with the MBTA and with the overall transportation system planning, I just don't agree that Boston 2024 is the appropriate vehicle to fix those systemic problems.

And why would anyone want to spend the next two years making the Olympics into this big vehicle for systemic change and then have the IOC decide for us? The Olympics are a one time event, not a sustainable planning process for the future.

I understand the frustration and the grasping at straws, but there is far more promise for reform of operations and planning in the MBTA bill now being negotiated in the state legislature. That is where the focus for real change should be.
 
tangent said:
And why would anyone want to spend the next two years making the Olympics into this big vehicle for systemic change and then have the IOC decide for us? The Olympics are a one time event, not a sustainable planning process for the future.
Click to expand...

Ask people in New York how they feel about that question. It's a generally accepted idea that the NYC2012 planning process, which was a debacle and resulted in resounding rejection by the IOC, was the impetus behind the Hudson Yards development (which is like redeveloping Beacon Park, if those buildings were going to be 1,000' tall and decked over the tracks), the Second Avenue Subway, the extension of the 7 Subway (which is tied in with Hudson Yards), and many other development and infrastructure efforts around the city.

Focusing attention on high-potential sites and long-ignored projects allows the public to get behind those efforts even if the Olympics fail. Six months ago, no one in Boston had heard of Widett Circle unless they lived or worked there. Two years ago, "Beacon Park" was a name never heard outside of the rail industry. A very realistic opportunity exists here for Rich Davey to push things like SSX and Red/Blue with the public. He's not using that opportunity fully, and maybe he can't politically do it in the spring of 2015, but he might be able to in November of this year or the months leading up to the referendum.

People are cynical about transit in Boston, with good reason, but that's not productive. At some point, we need to stop comparing ourselves to what other cities are and what we think we ideally SHOULD be, and start focusing on what we COULD be, or perhaps even what we WILL be. That's what an Olympic bid does.
 
tangent said:
I agree that there are serious issues with the MBTA and with the overall transportation system planning, I just don't agree that Boston 2024 is the appropriate vehicle to fix those systemic problems.
Click to expand...

If I was vague in prior posts, I apologize. I'm with you insofar as it's a very dangerous and risky proposition to tie the Olympics with a fundamental overhaul of the way that mass transit operations and capital construction is handled in Mass. I've been beating that drum for a while.

However, the hope was, at the start of the 2024 process, that the Olympic requirements would force the State to look at projects that are absolutely necessary, as Red-Blue is, but don't carry enough political currency to win funding from Legislature via MassDOT and the CIP. That was the hope, and in that I'm disappointed.

As Equilibria says - there are unique opportunities along with Games. Sure, it's well and good to say "but we should be doing that anyways!" But we aren't, and we won't, and that's life. Cynical, sure, but I've spent enough time buried in transit commission reports that date back 100+ years in some cases that advocate for a system we still haven't come close to realizing. It's a shame then, the way the Olympics has played out - the entire focus has been on assuring us plebs that no public funding will be involved, when they should have instead shown us a vision of how a combination of public and private funds could benefit the city and shown the IOC a vision of returning to the Barcelona/Urban Revival model (whether or not that could actually happens is iffy, but that's what marketing is for!). They started out strong in this regard, but it's just fallen apart as of late.

So it's not about fixing the MBTA, it's about skirting the normal order of business to get funding for projects as 2024 alters the political ground and should offer transit advocates a more forceful position than they would normally have, even if only temporary.
 
I am going to kick myself later for saying this, but I think Boston 2024 has gotten the relationship to the transit part mostly right.

If you link major transit projects to the Olympics in a significant way then you leave yourself open to arguments to delay those projects until the IOC makes their determination. Because why fund planning for something if you don't even know if it is happening. But if you delay until the IOC vote then you have relatively little time to get them done before 2024. It becomes a catch 22 in some ways.

West Station is a prime example. By reports in the Globe they were close to an agreement between the state, Harvard and BU to fund West Station even before the Olympics was a more concrete possibility, but probably the clock just ran out on the Gov. Patrick administration and they need to work out the linkages with BU campus to satisfy the university administration.

But now if you wait for the Olympics you get yourself into a planning funk because what is it are you planning for? Are you planning West Station for the long haul to support a new development with BU and Harvard to either side, or are there Olympics requirements that should be considered? Are the needs of the Olympics going to drive requirements and planning? You can't even really decide if Boston 2024 should be an important stakeholder and if so whether they are ready to participate in the detail.

I think that in just that one project you can see the issue where 2024 complicates planning rather than helping move things along.

As for being a catalyst for change or raising awareness of development or transit potential... I generally agree. Obviously the Olympics are a big name, a big brand that can garner attention to particular issues. But I would just be careful for how you hitch your trolley to that horse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top