Federal Funds for South Station Expansion

Arlington said:
{Semass confirms my belief that} Fidelity Investments has the whole building now. I don't think you need or want to try to kick them out in the short term, just as North Station has learned to live with the old Spalding rehab building pinching its throat. 20 or 40 years from now these buildings will be fully-depreciated and ready to come down and give their space back to transit use.

In the meantime, I think you want to move the intercity pickup/dropoff demand around the corner to Dot Ave anyway.

That Fidelity doesn't make heavy use of its curbside actually leaves it slack to be picked up by other uses. And they're fully commerical and will respond to market forces when the space really needs to be bought and converted.
Click to expand...

Arlington -- I think Fidelity will be using the curb for their shuttles to/from Seaport

Fidelity is vacating their buildings located in the Devonshire / Congress area and consolidating at Summer St. -- but will still have a substantial operation located at World Trade Center complex
 
245 Summer St
As a worker in 245 Summer St, I can tell you it's not getting demolished. With the sale of the historic headquarters at Devonshire, corporate operations are being consolidated in 245. Further, the recent complete renovation of the ground floor was done to make the building a more iconic world HQ, so it's not going anywhere.

As to the Seaport, Fidelity does own the WTC and the Seaport hotel, but internally those building are labyrinthine cube farms and not well suited to the high rise views befitting of corporate board rooms. Further, entertaining financial roadshows from NYC iBanks and funds that come up to BOS via the Acela would be more of a pain if they had to then travel over to the WTC compared to the current 50ft walk into the lobby.

SSX
For the love of all things holy, just give me (1) a BBY that does not make my lungs hurt after struggling through the thick exhaust haze and (2) let the carriages actually pull up to within 30ft of the BOS head house! Having to spend multiple minutes walking to a consist 400+ft away is maddening every night. Reading the original design studies of the bus station there is only a single mention of "exhaust" or diesel effluent. Who dropped the ball there?

So, whether they go with design plates 1,2, or 3, can we not have either of the above? Can we design a station where commuters can breath and trains can actually pull up to the station?
 
^ it is an interesting question: rather than asking the State to sweeten the land swap deal by $100m (pocketed by the USPS) what kind of capacity enhancements for SS could Baker get for $100m ? (A lower-level track or two? A smattering of electrification?) or maybe attention turns to a NS Rail Link below ground if the USPS is being ridiculous above ground.

To counter the USPS' hardball, it seems with exploring other ways and counter parties who would make for a (at least) semi-plausible alternative to simply handing the USPS state cash that'll get thrown into the USPS' pension-shortfall pit and never be seen in Mass again.

if we are going to pay too much, it's better to do it local than Federal.
 
Arlington said:
^ it is an interesting question: rather than asking the State to sweeten the land swap deal by $100m (pocketed by the USPS) what kind of capacity enhancements for SS could Baker get for $100m ? (A lower-level track or two? A smattering of electrification?) or maybe attention turns to a NS Rail Link below ground if the USPS is being ridiculous above ground.

To counter the USPS' hardball, it seems with exploring other ways and counter parties who would make for a (at least) semi-plausible alternative to simply handing the USPS state cash that'll get thrown into the USPS' pension-shortfall pit and never be seen in Mass again.

if we are going to pay too much, it's better to do it local than Federal.
Click to expand...

Can't get any capacity increases without knocking down USPS. There's nowhere to physically lay a track, all the new interlocking work for SSX is contingent on there being extra tracks, and they can't even lengthen the short Old Colony platforms (capped at 6 cars) because of the way USPS pinches them in. So there's literally nothing to do until the building gets demolished.

Now, relocate them and demolish the building and they have many different ways to structure the project and spread out the money over a longer term if things are tight. You could do just the bare track work with temporary shelters if the headhouse extension to Dot Ave. is going to be constrained on funds, then add that later. You could site prep, do the interlocking work, lengthen all the current platforms that need lengthening, and then stagger out the actual installation of just the new tracks. Any umpteen combinations like that are in-play depending on what the funding environment is for the build and the relative urgency for front-loading some parts of it over others.

But there's no start for anything without USPS being relocated and demolished first.
 
Boston Globe editorial:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...post-office/DpPyJORUxAMfjLXcd5yd1L/story.html
The motivation behind the whole expansion project rests on the idea that there’s no other way for the station to absorb the rail traffic expected in coming decades. But the Baker administration’s newly appointed T oversight board should press for a fresh look at that assumption, and evaluate other options. While expanding South Station onto the Postal Service land still seems like an obvious solution to rail congestion, are there are other technological or logistical ways to achieve the same objective, even if they are less than ideal?

For instance, the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center has previously offered the use of its track, which is only a few blocks away. Could a few South Shore commuter rail trains a day terminate there, instead of at South Station, freeing up platform space at the main terminal? The T has also signaled an interest in operating smaller trains for the Fairmount Line, which can move more quickly into and out of stations. By using those shorter trains on more lines than initially proposed, could the T make more efficient use of the existing 13 tracks at South Station? And if South Station really must have extra tracks, can the terminal be expanded westward onto Atlantic Avenue, rather than eastward onto the Postal Service property? Finally, as former governors Mike Dukakis and Bill Weld have urged, a north-south rail link would eliminate the need for new platforms. That idea has long been dismissed as a costly pipe dream, but if the state is really entertaining the notion of paying nearly $2 billion for seven train tracks, there’s no reason not to at least develop a current cost estimate for the alternative Dukakis and Weld propose.

If nothing else, a serious and public investigation of the costs and benefits of alternatives might send the Postal Service a needed wake-up call. It can’t simply count on having a captive buyer forever, and its own financial future isn’t exactly getting brighter. Expanding South Station is just a means to an end — and if there are other plausible and cost-effective ways to add capacity to the commuter rail system, the new MassDOT board shouldn’t be shy about changing course.
Click to expand...
 
PaulC said:
Boston Globe editorial:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...post-office/DpPyJORUxAMfjLXcd5yd1L/story.html
Click to expand...

Short answers:

No.

No.

[*hysterical knee-slapping laughter*] No.


#1 and #3 are political flights of fancy, not serious proposals.

#2 means the Globe couldn't even read the first paragraph of the SSX Executive Summary explaining its whole purpose. Wherein basic laws of physics understood by most middle-schoolers states that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. And South Station having of spaces--the grownups call them "interlockings"--occupied by one object--let's call those "choo-choos"--at one time.

Somebody might want to clue in Unfrozen Caveman Editorial Writer that their cunning plan for magic teleporting DMU's that violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle may cause the whole Financial District thru Midtown soccer stadium to collapse into a black hole. Which would make Shirley Leung very sad that we Bostonians can't have nice things.
 
^ how do NSRL costs (and BBY upgrades) compare to "$2b" at SS? If a new CR stop at Aquarium and new Amtrak service at NS could shift a lot of bodies out of SS, maybe we could afford to wait out the USPS at SS?

Or better Old Colony connections/capacity someplace like Quincy or Broadway
 
My bias: I want the SSX to happen in the worst way, so much that I am willing as a taxpayer to overpay by some amount (NOT a limitless amount) to get the USPS out of the way. The positive domino effects are worth some overpayment.

My grasping at straws for the morning:

1) Maybe key decision-makers at the USPS are as ignorant of the lack of viable alternatives to the SSX as are the Globe’s opinion writers. If so, Baker’s bluff towards other options might get the USPS feeling like a $100M bonus might slip away and open themselves up to criticism for notdoing the deal.

2) Maybe there are real estate professionals within the USPS who are looking at the Seaport District development boom and realizing there will inevitably be at least one market correction between now and full build-out, and if they shilly-shally for a few more years, they might end up selling into the downward correction and taking a smaller bonus.

3) Maybe Rep Lynch is ruthlessly reminding them of how much their delivery volume has fallen since the intertubes cranked up, and how that trend line has probably not reach its new and lower plateau. Phrased differently, the USPS’s space needs in the Seaport District will only shrink over time, placing downward pressure on how much they can extract from MA.

4) Maybe Baker’s membership in the Republican Party plus all the groundwork that Lynch has been laying these many years might put us collectively in a bit better position in DC on this specific issue. The average Republican in DC sees us as Sodom and Gomorrah and probably sees Baker as a RINO, but the average DC Republican just loves seeing government agencies sell off assets.

OK, I am grasping at straws, but them’s my hopes, and they’re mine.

As for Shirley Leung, if she manages to link the concept of SSX to the recent Olympics bid in the minds of the Globe-reading public, we should all be down at the Globe with pitchforks and torches. I mean seriously, there is some conceptual overlap between SSX and what B2024 was about, but the Olympics were inherently more controversial than SSX and the team pitching the Olympics went down to a flaming defeat in the court of public opinion. Whether that defeat was self-inflicted or wholly unfair matters to me not one whit just now. What DOES matter is that I don’t want the stench of that defeat splattered all over the SSX concept, which long predated the Olympics idea.

Shirley, if you lurk on this site, PLEASE for the good of the SSX effort, go into an internal mental quiet place … breathe deeply ... calm your mind … see fields of grass … see horses running … see toddlers chasing butterflies … be calm … be calm … now… let go of the Olympics, Shirley … let them go …. let go…. let gooooooo …..
 
Arlington said:
^ how do NSRL costs (and BBY upgrades) compare to "$2b" at SS? If a new CR stop at Aquarium and new Amtrak service at NS could shift a lot of bodies out of SS, maybe we could afford to wait out the USPS at SS?
Click to expand...

The study under Romney I believe estimated about ~$8bn, and that's now years old and surely higher today. Dukakis and some other parties have disputed those numbers, but I am skeptical of their claims it could be done for significantly less.

---------------------

Also, there's obviously far more potential for overrun expenses and delays tunneling and excavating under Boston than there is with SSX, which is remarkably simple at the basic level.

Demolish the post office, lay a bunch of track and build some platforms. Demolish something else somewhere, lay some more track, and build a layover yard.
 
If we can't build NSRL for less than $8BN, our problems are much bigger than NSRL.
 
NSRL for $8bil? Holy shit. We're talking about a pre-excavated place with utilities already relocated and lined with slurry walls. And that's $8b? I'm guessing most of this cost is approaches -- but still.
 
I think that someone in the past had said that those numbers were likely inflated as the path for the tunnel is clear and should be relatively simple to build.

Also I think the approaches were the highest cost piece.
 
The Romney forecast was gold-plated and sandbagged to make the project easy to kill. Not that it was, in itself, a lie, but that it modeled a full-built (over-built) NSRL that nobody was actually advocating to build.

Meanwhile, imagine that you could get a starter NSRL (including a 2-center-platform, high-throughput Amtrak+Lowell/Haverhill Line South Station Deep Under) for, say $4b. Isn't it possible we'd rather have that, than a bigger SSX for $2b?

And, again, the point here is not to fully-believe this, but to let the USPS know that it doesn't have us over a barrel, where we have to pay them unlimited $ because we have no feasible alternatives for moving more people to/through the Seaport & the FiDi. We have a BATNA, and it isn't gridlock and stagnation.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
NSRL for $8bil? Holy shit. We're talking about a pre-excavated place with utilities already relocated and lined with slurry walls. And that's $8b? I'm guessing most of this cost is approaches -- but still.
Click to expand...

There's a post by F-Line somewhere that explains and breaks down the reasons why NSRL cost so much despite the future proof work. He explain the main cost is the portals, despite all the utilities moved, walls ready, and only need to excavate out the dirt. Getting to it is still a mind boggling number. I don't recall where to find it and goolging it is catching a lot of posts. Maybe F-line remembers where he wrote that, it may even be in this thread.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
NSRL for $8bil? Holy shit. We're talking about a pre-excavated place with utilities already relocated and lined with slurry walls. And that's $8b? I'm guessing most of this cost is approaches -- but still.
Click to expand...

~70% of the cost isn't related to under-93 at all:

  • Underground stations
  • Tricky tunnel trajectory from SS Under to 93 (straddle under the Channel wall along Dot Ave. --> slip under the Silver Line --> swing out slightly under the Channel --> insertion point under 93 @ Northern Ave.)
  • Mile-long portal approaches and underground junctions (NEC, Old Colony/Fairmount, Northside)

And of course there's not an empty cavern under there, just clean unobstructed fill. Have to excavate, pour two bores' worth of proper water-sealed tunnel walls around the bare slurry frame, lay all the new tunnel-related utilities, etc. And then there will surely be a nasty surprise or three exposing shoddy Big Dig craftsmanship and rekindle our love affair once more with that whole era...fun stuff like drilling a hole here causing a waterfall to suddenly erupt 1/4 mile away upstairs.




Yeah, $8B is probably near-accurate when normal contingencies are considered. Maybe capped in place at that maximum without any further risk of rising by ability to toss some of the more problematic surplus-to-requirement stuff like Central Station. If drastic measures are required some things could be stageable and deferred to later at no loss of future capacity: defer the Old Colony/Fairmount portals, start it as 1 two-track active bore and 1 empty unused bore for future capacity, etc. But deferring means you pay more later when you pick the Phase 2's back up for completion.

Meh...want to rewrite the rules of the transportation network that profoundly, it's gonna cost. Dukakis and Salvucci were up-front about that from Day 1, and fact that we're still talking about this for talking-about-this's sake after 20 years of Beacon Hill regimes afraid to do anything means the upshot's still very very tantalizing.


The main thing we've got going for ourselves is we aren't corrupt as fuck like the NYC alphabet-soup agencies are with their construction rackets, so potential for NSRL turning into East Side Access is low. The chance of it turning into another Big Dig on degrees-of-graft is low ever since the Turnpike Authority was publicly decapitated on the Beacon Hill front lawn as a warning to others. So the most despairing possible cost overrun doomsday for an $8B projection is more like $8B + 20% (which is bad enough)...not $8B x 2 (which is all in a day's work for the MTA or Port Authority).



SSX is still unrelated. NSRL doesn't take anything away from the surface terminals. The capacity gain and ability to run mainline service densities the likes of which haven't been seen on this continent outside of NYC is all because there's a +1 terminal district being added, not because the existing ones are throttling down. Want 30-45 min. headway all-day service to every 495 destination; 15-20 min. all-day service to every 128 line; regional intercity hourlies to Portland, Concord, Hartford/Springfield, etc.; and Northeast Regional service that's as dense north of NYC as it is D.C.-NYC? Need SSX + NSX + NSRL.
 
I was pretty sure reading on here that this was a simple MassDOT / USPS transaction, but found this result on the MBTA Current Happenings FB Group after they posted in there the article that meddlepal posted earlier in the thread. Was I (in red) wrong?

TrRHMA7.jpg
 
I assume you're talking the "private sector money" comment. If the USPS got a serious private sector offer, that could work as a price for MassDOT. At the very least, MassDOT could immediately eminent domain it from the private developer (which they cannot do to the USPS). Of course, with that possibility, many private developers would be reluctant to even look at the parcel.
 
That article was published in 2010, when Jim Aloisi was the MassDOT secretary. Expansion efforts were reinitiated after the 2013 transportation bill was passed, but I'm not sure where negotiations with the USPS stand.
 
dwash59 said:
I assume you're talking the "private sector money" comment. If the USPS got a serious private sector offer, that could work as a price for MassDOT. At the very least, MassDOT could immediately eminent domain it from the private developer (which they cannot do to the USPS). Of course, with that possibility, many private developers would be reluctant to even look at the parcel.
Click to expand...

That's an exquisite catch-22
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top