General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I'd still argue that the property value upgrade at say, Union, is an order of magnitude higher than that of North Point.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

chmeeee said:
I'd still argue that the property value upgrade at say, Union, is an order of magnitude higher than that of North Point.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you measure.

Union is looking great for appreciation that's 10x, but given the size/height at Lechmere (and that transit frequency will be 2x there and the labor market access is probably 3x better at Lechmere than Union), I think you end up asking for a $ contribution that's about the same size.

(As noted elsewhere, though, Union can also be built as a single-level E-shaped platform where the trains "dock" and passengers simply walk around the trains at platform level. The headhouse can come later when the platform gets cut through to allow trains to continue on to Porter Sq.) Between a simple platform and US2's contribution, US is the more buildable station, and yes, at Lechmere we can't ask Northpoint to pay for all the costs of elevating...that is an ROW cost that is fair to impose on the whole Lowell Line branch.)
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Well ... thank goodness Liberty Mutual didn't have to pay full price for their new digs, amirite?

The T is a system, and everyone in E. Mass benefits from it. Every property owner pays taxes (except Ted Kelly) and most commuters coming in to the city pay a fee (unless they take 93).

This is what general revenue is for. I understand the art of the possible etc...but infrastructure is infrastructure.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Arlington,

I don't disagree with you, but we're dancing around the major issue: where will the funds for infra investment come from? Boston's + Cambridge's + Somerville's combined budgets clock in just under $3 billion. Take the City State of Berlin, which self-finances about 15 billion euros for a population of around 3.5 million. Averages out to about $4800 (when adjusted to USD) per person, Boston's comes in at around $3200 per person and Boston collects all of it's allowable levy (caveat: Cambridge only collects about 75%, they keep the res rates low), and Berlin is thriftier compared to cities in Scandinavia that can spend over $10,000 per person (again adjusted for USD) just within the political boundaries of a municipality. We can talk all we want about first-world operating practices (and we should - you do a great job of that), we can bemoan an absurdly gunked up and volatile financing mechanism for infra investments and procurement, and we can go a ways (and not a moment too soon) in demanding functional not outlandish facilities, and reigning in out of control mitigation costs, mitigation-induced delays, and subsequent cost overruns - but at the end of the day someone is going to have to pay, pay more, and the US does not have the tax rates or the levies at the municipal level to engage in rapid transit projects. This is not going to be an easy, or frankly politically viable, challenge to surmount.
 
Last edited:
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Arlington,

So I can see the logic with transit oriented "green field" / "brown field" development helping to pay for stations that open up access to their property.

But much of GLX services established communities who have been under served by transit for nearly a century. Instead of taxing them, we should be taxing the folks in Brookline and Newton who have had all that transit benefit for 50-80 years, and never paid extra for it.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

JeffDowntown said:
But much of GLX services established communities who have been under served by transit for nearly a century. Instead of taxing them, we should be taxing the folks in Brookline and Newton who have had all that transit benefit for 50-80 years, and never paid extra for it.
Click to expand...
Well, if Somerville would accept the same slab-with-bus-shelter stations like the C & D Branches in Newton & Brookline have "suffered" for those 50-80 years (and is world-standard and national-standard in LRT), we wouldn't be having this conversation. (Medford is along for the ride as far as stations go. I don't see "my" Medford's political class caring how fancy stations are so long as they are workmanlike and ADA accessible)

In fact, how 'bout the state pay for ADA-slab-with-bus-shelter (like the whole rest of the US gets in light rail) and then let Somerville and Medford (and Tufts and US2) decide how/if they want to fund an upgrade of $50m to headhouses at each particular location? (Gilman, Lowell, Ball, Tufts Hillside, Union, Brickbottom). I count $300m that the State doesn't "owe" anybody (and that was never anticipated in the CLF deal or as recently as 2004, when GLX was pegged at $750m)

And frankly, the Community Path would be an obvious bargain way of dealing with the grade-changes at the station(s) and the state would still build that for free.
 
Last edited:
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Arlington said:
Well, if Somerville would accept the same slab-with-bus-shelter stations like the C & D Branches in Newton & Brookline have "suffered" for those 50-80 years (and is world-standard and national-standard in LRT), we wouldn't be having this conversation. (Medford is along for the ride as far as stations go. I don't see "my" Medford's political class caring how fancy stations are so long as they are workmanlike and ADA accessible)

In fact, how 'bout the state pay for ADA-slab-with-bus-shelter (like the whole rest of the US gets in light rail) and then let Somerville and Medford (and Tufts and US2) decide how/if they want to fund an upgrade of $50m to headhouses at each particular location? (Gilman, Lowell, Ball, Tufts Hillside, Union, Brickbottom). I count $300m that the State doesn't "owe" anybody (and that was never anticipated in the CLF deal or as recently as 2004, when GLX was pegged at $750m)

And frankly, the Community Path would be an obvious bargain way of dealing with the grade-changes at the station(s) and the state would still build that for free.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this approach at all, although GLX may need a POP system to keep from getting bogged down in boarding. Basic infrastructure paid for by the Commonwealth/Feds; fancy extras paid for by the locals or businesses who want the upgrade.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Commonwealth Magazine takes up the cause of transit/transportation funding

Glad that there appears to more movement in Beacon Hill about dragging our infra financing scheme into the 21st century - but still worry there's a lack of focus on the implementing bodies. Raising regional funds is great, but it can only make a difference so long as the body that implements those funds has similarly targeted focus and isn't diluted by too many heterogenous interests in the suburbs, cities, etc... MassDOT and the MBTA both have to cater to interests in Boston, but more importantly to the more powerful interests on the fringe who can exert their influence on infra priorities through the General Court. Until that relationship is altered, and the cities of Somerville, Cambridge, Boston and the inner-core gain more steering power for proper transit infrastructure, then a regional tax will remain a solution to only half of the problem.

But if it shuts up "the subway doesn't run to my town, I shouldn't pay for it" crowd (or at least makes removes the political power those complaints translate into), then it'll be a win. Municipal participation (similar to what's outlined above by Arlington) in rapid transit infra is the law of the land for most of the cities that have, what we'd consider, great public transit.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

What about cities / state collecting taxes from developers who (might) benefit from future transit projects?

I think it's a dumb idea, but what do other people think?

Cambridge eyes new fees to help fund T projects
By Tim Logan, Boston Globe

Cambridge is proposing to levy a new fee on real estate developers in Kendall Square to help pay for public transit improvements, a model that officials said could be adopted by the MBTA for the Green Line extension and other projects.

A new transportation enhancement fund could be used to pay for upgrades to the Red Line’s Kendall/MIT Station or fund enhanced bus service, said Jason Zogg, a program manager at the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, which is expected to release a draft of its proposal this month.


The fees would be collected in the Kendall Square urban renewal zone, which is roughly bounded by Main, Binney, and Third streets and Galileo Way.

Cambridge is currently negotiating with Boston Properties, which has a request before the city to amend zoning in the district to permit an additional 1 million square feet of development.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

JohnAKeith said:
What about cities / state collecting taxes from developers who (might) benefit from future transit projects?

I think it's a dumb idea, but what do other people think?

Cambridge eyes new fees to help fund T projects
By Tim Logan, Boston Globe
Click to expand...

It would only work in specific areas that developers are dying to build in; Kendall being one of a few spots. Otherwise the municipality has no leverage...
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

BussesAin'tTrains said:
It would only work in specific areas that developers are dying to build in; Kendall being one of a few spots. Otherwise the municipality has no leverage...
Click to expand...

And these fees would absolutely kill moderately priced (affordable, mid-market) Transit Oriented Development -- which can barely make financial sense now.

Imagine if you tried to tack new fees onto the proposed mid-market developments at Andrew Square, or along the Orange Line corridor in Roxbury/JP...
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

LOL. I read back, I swear, but didn't see it. I thought you were talking about taxes on a city level, not specific to a neighborhood.

BTW, here's how NYC did it with the 7 extension (opening Sunday!).

Hope I'm not re-treading too much.

Bloomberg wanted the 7 train so badly that rather than wait for the MTA to drum up the money (he’d still be waiting), the administration said the city itself would foot the bill. The funding structure they devised, known as “tax incremental financing,” was an innovative one—at least by the standards of U.S. transportation funding. The city issued bonds for the construction to be repaid by future tax revenue from developers whose property value would soar once the extension was complete.

On paper, at least, the plan was a great example of what’s called “value capture”—leveraging real estate gains for the good of public transit. In practice, of course, there were hiccups. Officials later ended up giving Hudson Yards developers a tax subsidy, which Columbia University planning scholar David King called “exactly the opposite of capturing increased property values.”
Click to expand...

Seven fun facts about the 7 train extension
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Arlington said:
At Assembly, of the cost of the $57m Heavy Rail station, 25% came from FRIT (and 0% came from Somerville), so my complaint isn't only that the landowners (whether developers or surface-lot operators) profit from State-created propinquity, but also that the municipalities have come to believe that their only contribution is "planning" but not funding.

....Boston stands to reap hundreds of millions from appreciation all along the Blue Line once Maverick and Suffolk Downs are directly connected to MGH and get great access to Kendall/Central/Harvard. Some $m of co-pay is clearly in Boston's interest if it is what tips Red-Blue from "must-build" to "will-build" When I'm Military Governor of this prefecture, we'll create a TIF district within 1/4 mile of every Blue Line station and all along the Maverick/East Boston waterfront and the first $Xm of bonding will be used to fund the Red-Blue connector, and then we look at station upgrades in the Suffolk Downs area to promote TOD there. And Medford will have its arm twisted to get an infill stop on the Orange Line between Wellington and Malden Ctr and real TOD at River's Edge.

Cambridge and the owners of Northpoint should pay more for Lechmere. It is in their interest to see it built sooner.

Somerville, if it had to think in terms of co-pay, would not have been so eager to pacify Brickbottom and preserve its, ahem, artsy-craftsy-industrial complex. It'd have TOD'd it instead.
Click to expand...


Arlington -- you are almost onto the correct answer -- just didn't quite go far enough

As I have suggested in some detail in the past -- Boston needs a Metropolitan County Government -- roughly the area inside I-495

The infrastructure of the existing counties and most importantly the alphabet soup of agencies would be absorbed within

The Boston Metro would then "own" as a true midwest style county the T, Logan, Hanscom, the BCEC, Hynes, etc.

Cities and towns would be responsible for their municipal functions -- But all of the "Heavy Stuff" would be in the hands of the County Executive and County Legislature [unicameral elected from equal population compact districts]

To change things -- I'd make the capital of Boston Metro to be surprise Boston

Then just as London and Singapore, Boston would be instantly a World-Scale in addition to World Class City with about 4 M people translating into about 2 M tax payers -- and in the upper echelon of wealth per capita
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I-495 is too broad a boundary 128 makes more sense as it is more urban inside and there is a pretty clear difference between the more exurban development between 128 and 495 and the inner suburban/ urban development inside 128. And that area would still have close to 3 million people and makes more sense as it has been proposed before. Otherwise all you did was make the entire metro area one single entity which would still give suburban areas too much power which is what Arlington was trying to avoid.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

citylover94 said:
I-495 is too broad a boundary 128 makes more sense as it is more urban inside and there is a pretty clear difference between the more exurban development between 128 and 495 and the inner suburban/ urban development inside 128. And that area would still have close to 3 million people and makes more sense as it has been proposed before. Otherwise all you did was make the entire metro area one single entity which would still give suburban areas too much power which is what Arlington was trying to avoid.
Click to expand...

I agree. 128 makes much more sense. It's been proposed before by a state Rep, IIRC. But as the signature on here goes (I forget who's it is) "forget it ever happening, it's too great an idea."

I strongly support the entire Metro Boston area becoming regionalized - it would make things so much easier. But it makes too much sense logically.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

If you're forming a governmental body, using 128 as a boundary is sort of arbitrary. The 128 boundary is based on a couple of different things, but it's not really economic and political connectivity. Like, you'd be leaving out Natick and Framingham but getting Rockport and Gloucester. What's the functional argument for that? 128 is an easy boundary to see and understand, but you'd probably want to base it on some sort of MSR style designation.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

citylover94 said:
I-495 is too broad a boundary 128 makes more sense as it is more urban inside and there is a pretty clear difference between the more exurban development between 128 and 495 and the inner suburban/ urban development inside 128. And that area would still have close to 3 million people and makes more sense as it has been proposed before. Otherwise all you did was make the entire metro area one single entity which would still give suburban areas too much power which is what Arlington was trying to avoid.
Click to expand...

Citylover -- Exurban inside I-495? -- I'd take a visit beyond Watertown sometime to say:
  • Woburn,
  • Wilmington,
  • Billerica,
  • Bedford,
  • Burlington,
  • Waltham,
  • Framingham,
  • Natick, etc.
all of the above and some others have some or all of their business areas outside of Rt-128

it is also imperative to include such obvious bits of key Metropolitan infrastructure as
  • the MWRA -- John J. Carroll Water Treatment Plant (CWTP) in Marlborough and storage facilities in Weston
  • transportation -- Hanscom Field, Rt-128 RR Station in Westwood
  • and the very likely major development at the old South Weymouth Naval Air Station

You can't realistically leave them out of the plan for a viable metro county

No the I-495 is the minimum boundary with the possible exception of where it gets very close to the Cape

Once you have the Metro Boston County government then:
  • you recreate with less unaccountable bureaucracy and corruption the functions of the old MDC -- taking Metro Policing, Parks & Recreation at the old MDC facilities and the Parkways
  • take over from the Mass DOT the operation of all of the highways within the County
  • the T
  • Massport
  • Parking facilities for park and ride, etc.
  • Convention Facilities
  • jails & Prisons

Oh yes --I nearly forgot -- all of the State Bureaucracy ceases to have its bungling hand on the controls -- no more Chap this or that no more MEPA, etc.

The result -- Metro Boston becomes then properly geared up to be as a modern version of a Greek City State -- an unparalleled economic powerhouse -- the Hub of Innovation for the planet [and beyond]
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

My first question is so some of it is suburban congrats why would it make sense to have most of the land area in a city be suburban. It still leaves the issue arlington mentioned of suburban interests having too strong a pull.

What I was suggesting which is a bit different from you is not a county government but a true expansion of Boston's city boundaries to route 128 roughly speaking not necessarily that arbitrary but it gives a good approximation of the boundaries.

QVuGAhl.jpg


This overall looks pretty exurban yes there is an urban/suburban pocket but most of it is very spread out housing developments and individual homes scattered around with a few retail/office strips. I don't know what else you want for exurban yes some areas especially headed out towards Worcester are urban/suburban but even this is very spread out unless you are in Framingham and marlborough.
zj0ObuK.jpg


All you really did was highlight that Boston's suburbs are build as islands of urban areas surrounded by super low density development that has completely different outlooks on what is important as far as transportation is concerned.

I don't disagree with all your ideas a lot of them are good but the boundary you are drawing seems too broad to me to truly achieve what arlington had been describing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top