Emergency Closure of Bridge to (Boston's) Long island

JeffDowntown said:
Wow, that really is the center span.

Can we order another one STAT?
Click to expand...

It'd be a little more robust than that one. You can see the wartime steel shortage at work in that pic with how thin the beams look. Structurally fine until you get to the point in the bridge's lifespan where natural steel loss accelerated by the saltwater takes too much of a toll for even proper maintenance (which this one obviously didn't have) can't stretch it too much longer. Same general reasoning behind the Tappan Zee Bridge needing an ASAP replacement. In pretty much all non-wartime rationing eras the beams will be extremely overbuilt to the point where they can rust away a huge percentage of their steel and still be 100% fine for the loads. 75-100 year lifespans (and sometimes longer) under proper maintenance.

This one--and most of them constructed during times of materials shortages--was never intended to last more than 50-year rating. That was the compromise they had to make during materials shortages. If the original builders knew what age and level of decay this one was ultimately pushed to they'd probably tell future-MassDOT "Are you @#$% nuts?!?!?"
 
I'm glad. I initially was strongly in favor of replacing it, but this area is used as a homeless shelter was ridiculous and stigmatizing. And it's a pity how many of the Boston Harbor Islands are restricted. This island should be fully open to the public. And spending tens of millions of dollars on bridge to it in either case is a huge waste of money.
 
Boston has scant ability to maintain those structures out there without a bridge, and building an $80M bridge to reopen a homeless shelter so Boston can get back to hiding them away is cost ineffective on top of stigmatizing.

I think the City should sell it to the National Park Service to be part of the Harbor Islands. And the NPS and Boston Harbor Now should try to find some organization(s) to make some use of (and fund maintenance of) the structures and upgrade the ferry landing so the public can visit.
 
West said:
Boston has scant ability to maintain those structures out there without a bridge, and building an $80M bridge to reopen a homeless shelter so Boston can get back to hiding them away is cost ineffective on top of stigmatizing.

I think the City should sell it to the National Park Service to be part of the Harbor Islands. And the NPS and Boston Harbor Now should try to find some organization(s) to make some use of (and fund maintenance of) the structures and upgrade the ferry landing so the public can visit.
Click to expand...

Yes, totally agree. Reading my post now there's some grammatical errors and unclear sentences, but this is exactly what I meant.
 
Just looking at this thread again and at all those buildings out there slowly going into further disrepair... wondering if some sort of development or other non-profit uses (besides continuing the Summer camp via ferry) might be viable without the bridge? Any good examples out there of island uses that might be a good fit before it becomes too far gone for anything but letting it fall down?
 
The best use is to integrate it into the Boston Harbor Islands park, probably use the buildings there for some museums I guess? I think it's important not to turn this land over to private interests on account of the previous uses being for public benefit.

Definitely don't transfer the land to Quincy, they don't deserve it.
 
jass said:
Look at Governors Island in NYC
Click to expand...

Looks like a good model to look at. Seems similar concerns there over public versus private uses and similar potential.
 
davem said:
Resort hotel
Click to expand...

Leasing some of the 12 existing buildings of that campus for a boutique hotel or leasing land for a new hotel seems like a good use and would support tourism of the harbor islands.

The best use is to integrate it into the Boston Harbor Islands park, probably use the buildings there for some museums I guess? I think it's important not to turn this land over to private interests on account of the previous uses being for public benefit.
Click to expand...

I think that makes sense for most of the island and historic areas. Maybe a small museum/visitor center, but I think the bulk of buildings of that 12 building campus are going to either need to be torn down or converted to some sort of hotel use.

Leasing to a hotel would still keep the land itself public owned and controlled in the long term while bringing in outside investment could help support public enjoyment of the island(s) without having to use as many tax dollars.

I think it is great that the Summer Camp continues to operate, but I doubt the program can support maintenance of all those buildings going forward without coming up with some other uses.
 
It's worth noting that since the closure (supposedly temporary) of the public pier on spectacle island, there is not ONE Boston harbor island that is accessible to the public by private boat. This is shameful: the islands are a national park and yet access is incredibly limited and even the ones that are publicly accessible are only accessible by expensive ferries. The city needs to return access and ownership to the public. Forget a hotel. Just make the islands more public.
 
FK4 said:
It's worth noting that since the closure (supposedly temporary) of the public pier on spectacle island, there is not ONE Boston harbor island that is accessible to the public by private boat. This is shameful: the islands are a national park and yet access is incredibly limited and even the ones that are publicly accessible are only accessible by expensive ferries. The city needs to return access and ownership to the public. Forget a hotel. Just make the islands more public.
Click to expand...

^100% this
 
^Wouldn't this be the responsibility of the national parks service and not the city?
 
Justin7 said:
^Wouldn't this be the responsibility of the national parks service and not the city?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, not that simple. There are massive jurisdictional overlaps among bodies managing the harbor islands. It is not simply a National Park.

The Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area is managed by the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership: which includes:

United States National Park Service
United States Coast Guard
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
Massachusetts Port Authority
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
City of Boston
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston Harbor Island Alliance
Thompson Island Outward Bound Education Center
The Trustees of Reservations

Lots of room for circular finger pointing.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Unfortunately, not that simple. There are massive jurisdictional overlaps among bodies managing the harbor islands. It is not simply a National Park.

The Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area is managed by the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership: which includes:

United States National Park Service
United States Coast Guard
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
Massachusetts Port Authority
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
City of Boston
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston Harbor Island Alliance
Thompson Island Outward Bound Education Center
The Trustees of Reservations

Lots of room for circular finger pointing.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point, but it's not the case that all of those entities share equal responsibility for every island. The BHIP website has a breakdown of which entity has what:

http://www.bostonharborislands.org/the-partnership

For instance, the Coast Guard owns Little Brewster Island, and they handle the limited amount of visits there. I don't recall ever seeing anyone else having any authority over Little Brewster. So if anyone has a beef about how much access there is to Little Brewster, I don't think the USCG can point the finger at anyone else.

According to this site, the City of Boston is sole owner of Long Island, and that matches my recollection from other articles. So I think Long Island is the City's issue to deal with, though being an island means they get to interact with the USCG and US Army Corps of Engineers (at the very least) on any proposed alterations to navigational patterns and/or docking arrangement.

On other particular islands, your point gets more valid: DCR and City of Boston either co-own or co-manage Spectacle Island - this web site is internally contradictory on specifics - so there's plenty of wiggle room for a squabble.

On a more harbor-wide point of view, the huge array of entities makes your argument generally quite valid: it's a bureaucratic free for all, and I agree it's inherently prone to the multi-directional blame game. But when we're looking at any one island, I think we need to drill down to its specifics.
 
1.) Don't count on the city of Boston to do anything which requires spending more money on parks.

2.) When Long Island was populated, the city of Boston maintained two fire companies (the fire brigade) on the island for fire protection purposes. Good luck to any private entity seeking to operate a residential or public accommodation complex on Long Island in getting insurance coverage.

photohouselongislandc2000.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top