Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Ron Newman said:
What is the proposed solution to the UFP problem? Are there filters that can be installed in exhaust systems, and are these filters in place in the Big Dig vents?
Click to expand...

Hello, Ron.

The solution is to use technology identified during Boston?s Big Dig project begun in 1984, and during New York?s World Trade Center demolition work begun in 2001.

Today?s Big Dig vents aren?t filtered; they?re the same as Columbus Center?s proposal, and the rest of MTA?s plans for I-90: capture pollution in the corridors, concentrate it in the tunnels, and exhaust it via the vents.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

What is this technology, and why did the Big Dig not use it?
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
Today's Big Dig vents aren't filtered; they're the same as Columbus Center's proposal, and the rest of MTA's plans for I-90: capture pollution in the corridors, concentrate it in the tunnels, and exhaust it via the vents.
Click to expand...

inconm.jpg

Home of the walking dead.
Those poor bastards. Doomed.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ron -

The UFP problem is largely a diesel (not gasoline) problem - not just the rail lines, but the trucks as well. If you banned all the diesels driving the corridor, the UFP emissions would be reduced by many, many orders of magnitude. The significance of the health risk is still debated. Historically, the Europeans have regarded this as much more minor - which is why their laws favor and to some extent subsidize diesel automobiles. They like the fact that diesels get much better mileage per unit of fuel consumed, and thus emit less CO2 and incrementally contribute less to global warming. CARB has focused very much on particulates, which is why it has been essentially impossible to purchase a diesel passenger car in California and the states like Massachusetts that by law mirror California's emissions requirements. E.g., for a long while, you could buy a diesel Jetta in Louisiana but not here. Trucks are the bigger offenders and covered by different rules.

The good news is that via new technologies and new regulations the profile of diesel emissions in motor vehicles is going to change significantly. The first step toward that was the mandate for low-sulfur diesel that took place not long ago. To meet the new regulations, automakers will install particulate filters and urea injection systems. In the near future, you'll see diesel autos thus equipped available here - e.g., the Mercedes Bluetec. And the new diesels by Cummins, Cat, and Detroit Diesel also have expensive new filtration systems that have bumped up the price of trucks by a lot. Obviously it will take some time for the fleets to evolve. And there are still tighter regulations to come for the trucks. But the way to address this problem is in the pipeline (or tailpipe, if you will).

Waaaaay off topic, obviously. Again, while I'm not entirely dismissing the concern, I'm not worried about the killing fields. Consider that in many European countries, half the auto fleet is diesel and the densities are very high.
 
Re: Columbus Center

sidewalks said:
Ned,

Moving a few blocks away would not preclude your right or ability to inveigh against UFP contamination. That said, let's assume for a second that Columbus Center is defeated. You will have won your fight. But with the end of that battle, it would only seem sensible that you would choose to live in a place where there is less UFP pollution. If this problem is as poisonous as you suggest it would seem willfully negligent, if not suicidal, to stay on the corner of Clarendon and Columbus.
Click to expand...

Sidewalks,

Since the turnpike?s 3-mile tunnels and their vents are ? happily ? inevitable, my goal is to ensure that MTA, MBTA, CSX, and their many developers collectively remedy the UFP problem.

So, yes, I do choose to live in a place that has less UFP pollution; but whereas you prefer I go elsewhere, I prefer to stay here and solve the problem.

And if residents across the city vote to vent UFP pollution into their homes instead of curing it at the source, then yes, I probably will move several blocks north or south. But there's no indication that will be the outcome.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Hello, Ron.

There was only one reason the Big Dig fought to get excused from filtering their vents for UFP air pollution. It is the very same reason Columbus Center developers omitted UFP air pollution from all their propoals: money.

At least the Big Dig people admitted it.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
Since the turnpike?s 3-mile tunnels and their vents are ? happily ? inevitable, my goal is to ensure that MTA, MBTA, CSX, and their many developers collectively remedy the UFP problem.
Click to expand...

What specifically are you and your organization doing to help get this situation resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible so that this project can get back on track?
 
Re: Columbus Center

Hi Ned,
It seems like your solution for controlling UFP is to cover the Pike and install scrubbers. My problem with that is that it would be expensive and only address one small area of the world. Wouldn't a better approach be to encourage auto manufacturers to produce cleaner cars and to encourage people to live in pedestrian oriented environments like high density cities? This way, the burden of improving air quality is shared by many people, not just a few. Furthermore, this approach would reduce UFPs across the globe and not just in a small stretch of one city. Personally I feel like this solution is not only more economically friendly, but it is inherently more democratic!
 
Re: Columbus Center

I can't believe I'm going to defend Ned here, but c'mon underground. ABN doesn't have the resources to "encourage auto manufacturers to produce cleaner cars and to encourage people to live in pedestrian oriented environments like high density cities"

It a laudable goal to be sure, but even I can see it's a bit outside of their scope.
I'm fine with the scrubber solution in this case. Provided they don't fight spending some taxpayer money to install them.
 
Re: Columbus Center

stellarfun said:
It is easier for AMTRAK to add cars to the train sets, then to go double deck cars. The Acela is a standard six car set, the locomotives are overpowered for the set, so AMTRAK could add additional cars to the set without losing speed. However, that would require starting up a production line in VT that has long been closed. (There are no American manufacturers of railroad passenger cars anymore, but thats another story.)

I've noticed that on the AMTRAK regional trains (the non-Acelas) that more cars seem to have been added. Not that many years ago, these trains would have four or five cars, then six cars became the norm, and now it looks often to be seven.

The MBTA would probably need 6-8 electric locomotives for the Providence route; it is not a matter of cost, but the MBTA prefers having engines that it can operate over all its lines. Most other commuter railroads that use the electrified portion of the Northeast Corridor run electric motors on their commuter trains, MetroNorth in CT (which is electric but the cars do not have a separate motor for power) and the MBTA (diesels) being the exceptions.
Click to expand...

Amtrak simply cant continue to add cars due to limitations in platform lengths.

Thats why I suggested buying 2-3. These locomotives could exclusively be used on the Providence line, and maybe the Readville line if electrified.
 
Re: Columbus Center

They attend all the BRA's meetings and have the ear of a number of city councilors and state reps. And in anycase, it would be a lot more effective than continuing down the route they're on right now.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

statler said:
What specifically are you and your organization doing to help get this situation resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible so that this project can get back on track?
Click to expand...

Statler,

From the outset in 1996, this project hasn?t gotten on track even once, although several times it appeared near-track to those who wanted to cheerlead instead of look more closely. Remember: the mayor took scheduling out of the hands of the public process and turned complete control of that over to the developers. It can?t get ?back on track? if it was never there to begin with. The project owners kept themselves off the track, and it?s their decision whether and when to get on track, if ever.

Please do not imply that all the things Columbus Center did to itself are the work of me or other citizens; the project owners always did as they pleased, regardless of public comments. And certainly it is not any citizen?s responsbility to rescue a proposal that could have succeeded but for its own mistakes.

So then, the specific answers to your question are:

■ I notified the MTA-MBTA-CSX team about UFP air pollution issues on 13 April 2007. It has been one year. They never responded.
■ I inquired about UFP to the Columbus Center managers via e-mail, facsimile, voice mail, and certified postal mail during March 2008. Likewise, they never responded, either.
■ I inquired about UFP to the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC managers. They also signed for it. They never responded, either.

These 3 steps are just one example of how the landlord/partners and tenant/developers stretched their own venture out to 13 years (so far).

Since you raised this topic, perhaps you can itemize your own efforts ? if you made any ? to rescue California?s proposal. Don?t take that the wrong way, because project rescue is not your responsibility any more than it is mine. But if you have done things that could have helped, it would be interesting to hear what you did, and what resulted.
 
Re: Columbus Center

underground said:
Hi Ned,
It seems like your solution for controlling UFP is to cover the Pike and install scrubbers. . .
Click to expand...

Hello, Underground.

I never asked MTA to tunnel over the highway, or to increase UFP air pollution ten-fold. MTA decided to do both, on its own, decades ago.

My solution of cleansing UFP in the vents was necessitated by MTA's decision to build the tunnels and vents in the first place.

So tunneling the turnpike is not my solution to UFP; rather, cleansing the air in the vents is my solution to the ten-fold UFP increase.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
From the outset in 1996, this project hasn?t gotten on track even once, although several times it appeared near-track to those who wanted to cheerlead instead of look more closely. Remember: the mayor took scheduling out of the hands of the public process and turned complete control of that over to the developers. It can?t get ?back on track? if it was never there to begin with. The project owners kept themselves off the track, and it?s their decision whether and when to get on track, if ever.

Please do not imply that all the things Columbus Center did to itself are the work of me or other citizens; the project owners always did as they pleased, regardless of public comments. And certainly it is not any citizen?s responsbility to rescue a proposal that could have succeeded but for its own mistakes.
Click to expand...

Ned,

1) I don't understand why you keep bringing up scheduling as an issue. What exactly are you expecting from a developer?

2) How can you honestly say that the developers and BRA didn't address the publics comments. This project has completely changed since it was originally proposed. Do your remember when it was two 30 + story towers on just two parcels?
 
Re: Columbus Center

I never asked MTA to tunnel over the highway,
Click to expand...

Does this mean you'd prefer not to have anything built over the Turnpike?

(My own personal preference: I'd like to see something built here. I'd prefer it to be built without major public subsidy. If subsidies are required, there are other better places to spend them.)
 
Re: Columbus Center

Are you telling me some neighborhood zealot sent a letter to the MTA, CalPERS, Winn, etc., and these groups signed the registered mail and promptly threw it in the garbage? I'm soooo shocked. They should have had their executive boards schedule a meeting with you so you could personally lodge the latest complaint du jour.

The fact is we live in a capitalist society and this project is not profitable, so it is on the shelf. If it becomes profitable, either through more grants, cheaper capital, or cheaper construction methods it will be back. In the meantime, we all move on - it's really not a big deal.

The complaints of people like Ned were listened to (presumably with fake concerned faces), and thankfully ignored. The process moved forward with large, broad-based citywide support and then the financial markets imploded and went into disarray just as steel costs skyrocketed.

It is wrong to give too much credit to some neighborhood yahoos and their chicken little rants. The financial decision to hold off on this project makes perfect sense. You can't take a financial agreement that was made under very different market circumstances and expect it to hold water in today's financial market. The project will be back -in all its beautiful, dense glory- when the markets recover.

Everyone, the developer included, is posturing right now.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Not to be pedantic, Ned, but can you stop referring to CalPERS as "California" and this project as "California's"?

California (the state) issues bond funds for construction projects, like highways, within its boundaries. CalPERS (the pension fund) has a diversified portfolio that covers all sorts of assets across many countries, never mind states. PRIM is the analogous entity in Massachusetts, and you won't find anyone in the financial community using the state's name as shorthand for either. The funds have some degree of legislative oversight and disclosure requirements - one reason that CalPERS appears prominently in the public record as an investor, while other entities are not disclosed. But there are also pretty strict rules and a structure ensuring their ability to invest independently from political (state) influence.

Moreover, lead investors don't call all or even most of the shots. Indeed, CalPERS invests alongside and through various general partners, in this case real estate funds, who do all of the spadework. CalPERS may be involved in many tranches of financing, and as lead investor they certainly have some influence on big-picture decisions. But for the most part, their decision is "we're in" or "we're out" according to certain terms and conditions. They sure as hell don't get involved in most of the minutia that we are discussing here.

It's analogous to Fidelity investing in McDonald's. Let's pretend that Fidelity funds are, collectively, the largest investor. We wouldn't refer to "Fidelity's cheeseburger," and if we wanted to protest the cleanliness of the bathroom at the McDonald's in Downtown Crossing, we wouldn't go to Ned Johnson.
 
Re: Columbus Center

To sum,

> California has no air quality standard for UFP.

> California does not regulate sources of UFP emissions per se, as there is no standard for UFP.

> California has distributed a handbook with suggestions for local governments on siting new development in areas which could be affected by certain air pollutants and certain sources of air pollutants. (The pollutants are numerous and not limited to UFP. The sources include gas stations, dry cleaners, major highways, ports, railyards, distribution warehouses, etc.) The handbook is exhortatory, only.

> The meteorology of urban California differs substantially from that of urban Boston, hence ambient concentrations and exposure rates will not be similar.

> The California exposure rates for highway-related diesel particulates (which include UFP) are predicated on a daily truck volume of 10,000 - 20,000 diesel trucks. I am quite sure that the Mass Pike does not see this volume of diesel truck traffic in the vicinity of Columbus Ave.
___________________________________
Also, if one literally adopt's Ned Flaherty's proscriptive siting, all proposed park areas at Columbus Center should be eliminated, as they are sited within a so-called 'toxic zone', regardless of any venting and scrubbing.

Also, the proposed Gateway Center should be canceled, as well as One Kenmore, the BU transportation hub on Commonwealth Ave, the new Chinatown residences, Avenir, Lovejoy Wharf, etc., etc. The new BU residence halls on the West Campus should be torn down. All these developments are within Ned Flaherty's so called toxic zone.
 
Re: Columbus Center

TC said:
Ned,

1) I don't understand why you keep bringing up scheduling as an issue. What exactly are you expecting from a developer?

2) How can you honestly say that the developers and BRA didn't address the publics comments. This project has completely changed since it was originally proposed. Do your remember when it was two 30 + story towers on just two parcels?
Click to expand...

Hello, TC.

Why do I mention schedule? ? Forum members regularly claim that the 13 years (so far) is the fault of citizens, or the fault of the public process itself. Citizens can be imperfect, of course, and the public process has flaws, too. So I mention schedule to remind people that only 3 years were spent on public process, compared to 10 years on developer back-room planning. That?s the only fair response to forum members who keep wanting to blame every bad outcome on citizen involvement.

What do I expect from developers? ? From competent developers, I expect competitive bids, independent review committees, financial disclosure, master-plan/zoning compliance, and environmental justice. Those expectations haven?t been met, but since California and MTA are now entering their 3rd year of re-negotiation, there's still time.

The many changes did not honor public comments. ? I have the comments, the proposals, and the subsidy applications, and so am completely grounded in saying that the developers ignored every significant public criticism since 1996. I won?t repeat the already posted details here, but the 7 major public criticisms remain:

1. no competive bids
2. no independent review committee
3. no financial disclosure
4. UFP air pollution increased 10-fold
5. master-plan violation: 2-acre park replaced with 626-car garage
6. master-plan violation: promised public parks converted to private gardens
7. Developer demanded subsidies after proposal promised zero subsidies. Revenues rose farther and faster than costs, so subsidies now are needed less than ever.

Every major re-proposal only grew larger: the earliest 1997 proposal was for 713,000 s.f.; the latest 2008 proposal is for 1,467,600 s.f., with the original 420-foot skyscraper intact.

Hope that helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top