Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

Shepard said:
My problem with the SL - whether bus or rail - is that it's a stub line so long as it only connects to South Station - since if your destination is the seaport, you must as well walk to many locations once you're at SS. (And no, the integration with SL Dudley was never a viable or useful option in my opinion, especially aslong as the whole thing was to stay BRT.) The current "line" we have won't be truly valuable until it connects in with the Green Line or somehow continues up along the Greenway making connections with other lines (e.g. at Aquarium, Haymarket or N Station).
Click to expand...

+1

The silver line seaport service is fine, so far as it goes, but it just doesn't go very far. I use it now and then, but I'd be more likely to use it if it served more destinations, and more fully integrated with the rest of the system. I know that phase 3 as proposed was a boondogle and won't happen, but if it had happened, it certainly would have made for a much better transit line.
 
Shepard said:
My problem with the SL - whether bus or rail - is that it's a stub line so long as it only connects to South Station - since if your destination is the seaport, you must as well walk to many locations once you're at SS. (And no, the integration with SL Dudley was never a viable or useful option in my opinion, especially aslong as the whole thing was to stay BRT.) The current "line" we have won't be truly valuable until it connects in with the Green Line or somehow continues up along the Greenway making connections with other lines (e.g. at Aquarium, Haymarket or N Station).
Click to expand...

This is the only valid criticism I see.

Everything else about it being a bus is a giant red herring.

The fact that the "real" silver line is only 3 stations long and ONLY connects with the red line is the problem.

The Boylston connection would have been huge for the lines popularity and relevance.

Greenway connection is just as good.
 
TheRifleman said:
"Yes, the street level SL is horrible" That is my point............thats it. Yes I have never taken the silverline underground. I usually just see the Silverlines sitting in traffic. So my case in point is the put the entire system UNDERGROUND so we can have less TRAFFIC.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the Silver Line averages slower speeds in its dedicated tunnel than it does in mixed traffic.

That dedicated tunnel is quite literally crumbling away due to design / construction failure (pick one, or both).
 
I might have use for the tunnel if it could have a pedestrian portion to it. Walking over the bridge in the winter can be brutal, but riding a bus a 1/4 mile is silly. it would take more time to get on a bus than to walk to work. Wet or not.

That's one thing I always think of from my one trip to London. The ability to walk between so many stations was fantastic.
 
datadyne007 said:
Ok, so case in point... you're making these statements and judgments about the Silver Line despite never even riding it through the area we are talking about. Yes, the street level SL is horrible, but the Seaport is an entirely different story. Until World Trade Center, the SL is entirely underground in its own dedicated tunnel.

There's an architecturally world-class station (something you'd expect at a train hub in Europe) on this line. You would have no idea that there are actually just dedicated buses below:
MBTA_Courthouse_Station.jpg


Courthouse was designed this way in anticipation of Fan Pier development, as it is the closest station.
Click to expand...

My problem is that they design this world class station for a single route BRT. This station is huge yet at any point, no more than 10 people are spotted on either platform. This station should be bustling with many routes.
 
^ That's very true. It's all that for a single rte BRT.

Courthouse's design also gives me hope that it will someday serve as a major mass-transit hub. It has the sheer bulk to handle such capacity. That concourse is bigger than South Station's.
 
Any assertion that the Silver Line tunnel under the Channel can be converted to rail is not supported by my recollection of conversations I had with numerous engineers during its planning and construction.

I'd like to see any official document or official statement suggesting otherwise. If produced, I'll keep my mount shut on the issue.
 
The Courthouse Station is easily on of the top 5 or so T stations in the whoe system.
 
Sicilian said:
Any assertion that the Silver Line tunnel under the Channel can be converted to rail is not supported by my recollection of conversations I had with numerous engineers during its planning and construction.

I'd like to see any official document or official statement suggesting otherwise. If produced, I'll keep my mount shut on the issue.
Click to expand...

I guess my response to this is that I'd like to see the documentation that it cannot be converted. I'm prepared to believe it, but I've seen no evidence to support the notion. Why couldn't we lay some rails and send a street car through?
 
Sicilian, I don't think there's any question that the tunnel was planned with a light rail conversion in mind. If the engineers babbled on about buses back in the days of planning and construction it was probably because buses have more requirements in these types of tunnels than LRVs do. Consider the stated need to completely redo the Tremont Street tunnel for use as BRT rather than use the existing tunnel intact.
 
I'd like someone to show me the money with an official statement that the Silver Line tunnel supports conversion to light rail -- that should be a no-brainer since the MBTA would benefit from touting such future projects.

As I recall, engineering constraints within the tunnel unfortunately precluded future use for light rail. That was a conscious decision based on budget issues. Prove me wrong.

This reminds me of similar assertions floated last week that there's no problem with office and hotel uses dominating development of the Seaport because remaining parcels could eventually be backfilled with enough residents to be a neighborhood. That assertion flies in the face of actual plans which accommodate only 5,000-8,000 residential units INCLUDING all Fort Point parcels. In other words, if the City doesn't get on the ball using its power of zoning to ensure a mix of uses, backfilling for enough residential development to call the Seaport a neighborhood just won't be physically possible.
 
Can't prove a negative Sicilian, but unless you can back your claim with evidence, it's no more valid than the assertion that it is convertible. Without documents, the only thing we have is logic. From a purely logical standpoint, LRT conversion seems reasonable. The tunnel is large enough to accommodate this type of vehicle, which requires less operating space than a bus.

As for the question about infill, I think we all know that what ultimately happens and indeed has already happened doesn't follow the actual plans. Things change, an initial plan for 8,000 residential units can become 4,000 (or 12,000) and our process allows this, whether you see it as corrupt or transparent, it is possible.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but the suggestion in that regard that I made was premised on the idea that the market can and does shift, and that the best way to get some residential development is to not start from nothing but parking lots, trying to build the entire neighborhood at once, but instead start from an area that has become a desirable location.
 
Re. Silver Line, without pretending to be an expert at civil engineering, I don't think it was a matter of width in the tunnels. I suppose issues such as weight, vibration and angle of inclination probably vary between buses and trains. Again, you don't hear the MBTA touting a future "phase" in their plans -- to me that is telling itself, but I understand your point.

Re. Residential, I provided a number of examples where a combination of market forces and political forces are acting against the Seaport ever evolving into a neighborhood with a critical mass of residential development. By the time a new administration is in place, all deals for approvals above pre-existing zoning would have already been sealed. I'm sure some may feel that any land use on the Seaport is a good use but I continue to believe that the greatest potential of the Seaport would be realized with a critical mass of residential development. The purpose of zoning and planning is to sweeten the pot for developers and property owners in order to realize this highest potential for a district -- not simply a political tool for exacting offsite benefits.
 
I looked for nearly an hour today for documents talking about the South Boston Piers Transitway being compatible with light rail - you're right, Sicilian that it's difficult to find. Maybe I'll send some emails and try to find this out for certain.

In terms of residential, I agree about the inconsistency and the constant revisions away from it. Nonetheless, residential itself doesn't make a neighborhood - West End (Charles River Park) is very largely residential, and actually quite dense, in fact, but is hardly the picture of a thriving neighborhood. That's why I've been quite happy about Vertex (not too happy about the deal, however).
 
^Shepard

I appreciate you spending time looking for something re. MBTA. I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

Re residential...

All experts including the BRA's own hired consultants suggested any number at or above 10,000 residents in the Seaport and Fort Point, regardless of building type and footprint, would provide critical mass to ensure the density was sufficient to be a "neighborhood." I don't think Charles River Park comes close to the type of density required to be sufficient for a thriving neighborhood.

As a separate issue, rental apartments are not considered the same as condos because rental unit tenants don't make the same level of investment in a neighborhood as owners do. I bring this up because the market is currently supporting development of apartments and the BRA makes no distinction between apartments and condos in their approval process.

The fact that Fan Pier was fully approved with a sparse 650-675 residential units on its 21 acres tells you all you need to know about the market forces and political forces acting toward pushing the Seaport into being a commercial/office destination. Even conservatively speaking, that number was half that suggested by all urban planners and even the Boston Society of Architects.
 
The tunnel goes through infill right?

And it goes over the highway?

Rail is heavier, so maybe the tunnel isnt strong enough to hold onto rail + heavy rail vehicles...?

I cant see what else would be the problem.
 
One answer may be the grade; a second answer may be that the Silver Line terminus at South Station had to be squeezed in between the tunnel and the Red Line, and the turning radius for light-rail may have been marginal from an engineering standpoint. An articulated bus can make a tighter turn.
 
So Ive gone ahead and captured every angle. All of them. (see yesterday for closeups)

IMG_0002.jpg


IMG_0004.jpg


IMG_0034.jpg


IMG_0035.jpg
 
Excelent pix

We need more pix and less speculation on the structural requirements for conversion of buidings or trnsit lines -- if the economics demands it -- the conversions will be done

Case in point --the Back Bay - repurposed from a residential district circa 1900 to Commercial / Office and residential / institutional today

As to the build-out of infill /etc/ -- if you took and added 2 floors to each of those massive warehouses located in the "Greater Innovation District" (i.e from the Fort Point Chanell to the Bridge next to the Power Plant) I'd bet you could have a few thousand people living above the shops / restaurants at the street level and offices in the middle without any construction from the ground-up

The Silver Line's achiles heel is the street-level crossing of busy and getting busyier D Street
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top