Long Island Bridge

kingofsheeba

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Sorry Mods if there is a duplicate and I only put it here and not the local politics thread because it a) shows that Marty doesn't get it on Long Island and b) it shows how Long Island is another missed opportunity to re-imagine and rebuild the island as an entirely new neighborhood complete with sustainable affordable housing.

But Marty wants to keep the island as a drug rehab center and set aside some of that refer madness money for a $28 million dollar bridge that Quincy said that it'll block? I haven't been too hard on Marty in certain circumstances and in fact, I think that he's a breath of fresh air to a degree. He's waaaaaaaaaay out of touch here. With a tax-exempt hospital site assessed at $103 million, I'm thinking that he could do so much more with this LI.

http://quincy.wickedlocal.com/news/20180410/quincy-legal-action-possible-if-long-island-bridge-plans-continue

Boston’s mayor kicked off 2018 by announcing his intentions to rebuild the bridge and put a drug-treatment facility on Long Island. Long Island is part of Boston, but the bridge would connect it to Moon Island, which Boston owns but is within the city of Quincy. Any vehicle traffic going to Long Island from Boston would have to go through Quincy’s Squantum neighborhood, which is heavily residential with mostly small roads. Many of the residents in that area were happy to see the previous bridge come down three years ago and don’t want a new one built.

Ward 6 Quincy city councilor William Harris, who represents and lives in the Squantum area, continues to oppose the bridge. He said he is worried about the traffic and disruption in Squantum, and said Boston should work on water transportation to the island instead of a bridge.

“The mayor of the City of Boston should make the right practical financial decision,” he said. “I urge the people of Boston to reach out to their city councilors who are going to be voting on the budget and ask them what are they paying for.”
 
Last edited:

bakgwailo

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
890
Reaction score
14
Good, I hope he can somehow manage to ram the bridge down Quincy's throat and reopen the rehab facilities on the island. The last thing I want to see is it being passed off to some of his buddies for "redevelopment".
 

Scalziand

Active Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
463
Reaction score
0
So he's okay with a ferry across the same span and carrying the same amount of traffic through Squantum? Ok then.
 

FK4

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
44
I'm sorry, but these are all abysmal ideas.

The Harbor Islands are supposed to be (are) a National Park, yet almost every island is either partially or totally restricted from being accessed by the public.

This stems from two factors:
1) the warehousing of stigmatized populations as far away from the 'normals' as possible, and
2) the seizure of land for military purposes during the various wars of the 19th and early 20th century.

Neither of these great American traditions have any place in 2018.

The land should under no circumstances be developed. Nor should the rehabs and shelter be rebuilt. There is no logic, nor humanity, in forcing the homeless population of Boston to line up for a bus that takes an hour through traffic to get out to Long Island, simply to check into a city shelter. It's ridiculous. And the only reason it happened that way in the first place is because nobody wants to live next to a shelter. This error should not be repeated.

Long Island is massive, and beautiful, but when the bridge existed, potential visitors were greeted by a gate and a guardhouse, and access was forbidden. It's time to give Long Island - and the rest of the islands - back to the people so they can be enjoyed by all.
 

Lrfox

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
2,512
Reaction score
20
Sorry Mods if there is a duplicate and I only put it here and not the local politics thread because it a) shows that Marty doesn't get it on Long Island and b) it shows how Long Island is another missed opportunity to re-imagine and rebuild the island as an entirely new neighborhood complete with sustainable affordable housing.

But Marty wants to keep the island as a drug rehab center and set aside some of that refer madness money for a $28 million dollar bridge that Quincy said that it'll block? I haven't been too hard on Marty in certain circumstances and in fact, I think that he's a breath of fresh air to a degree. He's waaaaaaaaaay out of touch here. With a tax-exempt hospital site assessed at $103 million, I'm thinking that he could so much more with this LI.

http://quincy.wickedlocal.com/news/20180410/quincy-legal-action-possible-if-long-island-bridge-plans-continue
I'm not sure how Long Island (requiring ferry serve or a bridge) is a more appealing option than the Shattuck Hospital site. It's more central, doesn't require any infrastructure additions or major upgrades, is zoned for public health, and will be available sooner than anything could ever be made available on LI. Especially with the level of push back he'd face on it.
 

kingofsheeba

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure how Long Island (requiring ferry serve or a bridge) is a more appealing option than the Shattuck Hospital site. It's more central, doesn't require any infrastructure additions or major upgrades, is zoned for public health, and will be available sooner than anything could ever be made available on LI. Especially with the level of push back he'd face on it.
I don't get it either. Long Island is already home to Camp Harbor View AND Hannah Farm. No need for a power struggle where there isn't one.
 

kingofsheeba

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
I'm sorry, but these are all abysmal ideas.

The Harbor Islands are supposed to be (are) a National Park, yet almost every island is either partially or totally restricted from being accessed by the public.

This stems from two factors:
1) the warehousing of stigmatized populations as far away from the 'normals' as possible, and
2) the seizure of land for military purposes during the various wars of the 19th and early 20th century.

Neither of these great American traditions have any place in 2018.

The land should under no circumstances be developed. Nor should the rehabs and shelter be rebuilt. There is no logic, nor humanity, in forcing the homeless population of Boston to line up for a bus that takes an hour through traffic to get out to Long Island, simply to check into a city shelter. It's ridiculous. And the only reason it happened that way in the first place is because nobody wants to live next to a shelter. This error should not be repeated.

Long Island is massive, and beautiful, but when the bridge existed, potential visitors were greeted by a gate and a guardhouse, and access was forbidden. It's time to give Long Island - and the rest of the islands - back to the people so they can be enjoyed by all.
As I said, it's already home to Camp Harbor View and Hannah Farm. So it's not totally uninhabitable already.

https://www.bgood.com/our-community/our-farm/
http://campharborview.org/
 

bakgwailo

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
890
Reaction score
14
I'm sorry, but these are all abysmal ideas.

The Harbor Islands are supposed to be (are) a National Park, yet almost every island is either partially or totally restricted from being accessed by the public.

This stems from two factors:
1) the warehousing of stigmatized populations as far away from the 'normals' as possible, and
2) the seizure of land for military purposes during the various wars of the 19th and early 20th century.

Neither of these great American traditions have any place in 2018.

The land should under no circumstances be developed. Nor should the rehabs and shelter be rebuilt. There is no logic, nor humanity, in forcing the homeless population of Boston to line up for a bus that takes an hour through traffic to get out to Long Island, simply to check into a city shelter. It's ridiculous. And the only reason it happened that way in the first place is because nobody wants to live next to a shelter. This error should not be repeated.

Long Island is massive, and beautiful, but when the bridge existed, potential visitors were greeted by a gate and a guardhouse, and access was forbidden. It's time to give Long Island - and the rest of the islands - back to the people so they can be enjoyed by all.
There is already other stuff there (including the shelter/rehab). I also see no issue with having a long-term public detox/rehab center that is far removed from any temptations for people who want to at least try to get sober, especially given our current epidemic. Long Island worked, and had worked very well for decades (century?) until the bridge literally fell apart. The island has been used for social services by the Boston Health Commission since ~1885 and should continue to be used for the public good.
 

tangent

Senior Member
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
21
Where is Boston going to get the money for this? Last bridge nearly fell down before it was taken down. "Sustainability" means you can economically maintain the infrastructure and we already have one data point which demonstrates that it is not economically sustainable to maintain a bridge to this island.
 

millerm277

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
9
Where is Boston going to get the money for this?
The city has already allocated the money for it, it is funded.

Last bridge nearly fell down before it was taken down. "Sustainability" means you can economically maintain the infrastructure and we already have one data point which demonstrates that it is not economically sustainable to maintain a bridge to this island.
The last bridge lasted >60 years, which seems reasonable.
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
29
The city has already allocated the money for it, it is funded.



The last bridge lasted >60 years, which seems reasonable.
And the last bridge was built during a steel shortage during the Korean War. The steel used was barely up to structural standards. Surprising it lasted 60 years.
 

FK4

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
44
It’s a shame. This is
1) a complete waste of money
2) perpetuates segregating / stigmatizing homeless and substance use disorders (it’s basically a modern day leper colony)
3) plain rude to homeless people - who have to board buses downtown Andy then schlep thru Quincy traffic for an hour to get here every day
4) detracts from one of the few opportunities to actually open a harbor island for public use (every single island is either restricted or prohibitively expensive to visit)

What’s really going on here is government inertia, the usual pattern of Boston continuing the status quo because everyone involved is 1) too brainless to consider alternatives (has boston even once proposed ANY transportation-related project that wasn’t first conceived by the Callahan plan, or earlier?) , 2) influenced by NIMBYs (nobody wants this stuff in their neighborhood; q.v. San Francisco millionaires fighting a shelter in recent news), and 3) cloaked in all the liberal gossamer bullshit about helping people in need, when in reality it would be a lot more helpful to have services that were more convenient for those seeking them (and the money for this ridiculous project would be much better spent being pumped directly into services for substance use disorders and homeless programs).

I remained stunned that I have yet to see a single editorial bringing up these aspects. While I understand that most of the population has zero idea of the logistics of getting out there, and isn’t really concerned about stigma but perfectly happy to pat themselves on the back because they live in a city that’s going to spend millions for a wonderful project that allows them to check a big liberal box, I can only imagine that the remainder of anyone who could possibly have similar concerns to mine are all too aware of the fact that it’s realistically going to either be an island an hour away or nowhere at all when it comes to detoxes and shelters.
 

cadetcarl

Active Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
412
Reaction score
2
I share some of your sentiments, but:

1) It's not a complete waste of money. Even if the physical plant on the island were given over to other programs of your choice, even recreation, people would still need a way to get to it and a bridge has higher throughput than boats, it just does.

4) The restricted islands are there for vital reasons and they serve the whole metro in whatever capacity. And you can argue that the cost is too high to get to the open ones (which are various and multiple) but there's got to be a tradeoff between infrastructure, security, maintenance, etc. and cost. It's not just grassy fields, something has to be done about the facilities already on the island, and someone has to be paid to do the something.

Agreed about the rest though, for a long time it's served to too neatly as the rug under which we sweep the city's social problems. We have to fix the problems where they happen.
 

tangent

Senior Member
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
21
The city has already allocated the money for it, it is funded.
Is the maintenance funded? That is my real question. The previous bridge was vehicle restricted due to corrosion long before it was taken down.

The last bridge lasted >60 years, which seems reasonable.

I believe for about a decade of that time there was serious enough concern to put up a guard shack and restrict most vehicles from going over the bridge. The total cost of ownership isn't just the cost to build this bridge. It is the maintenance cost which is yearly... that is what I am saying the track record was that it wasn't properly maintained. In a state which has a bad track record maintaining bridges, it was particularly poorly maintained because it was always a lower priority than more traveled bridges.

If we are talking about public waste, then there are plenty of worse instances, but this does seem like a bridge to nowhere situation. At nearly $200,000 per per homeless person just for the bridge to get them to the shelter... Yes I know you have to measure that over a longer period of time and "homelessness" is really about mental health not really about efficiently housing people in a shelter, but still with the program and transportation and maintenance we appear to have quite a lot of money per person being spent.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
24
The bridge is a good investment in both the present use and future potential use as a park. I don't see it as a waste of money simply because there is so much potential on the island.
 

DominusNovus

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
831
Reaction score
1
It’s a shame. This is
1) a complete waste of money
2) perpetuates segregating / stigmatizing homeless and substance use disorders (it’s basically a modern day leper colony)
3) plain rude to homeless people - who have to board buses downtown Andy then schlep thru Quincy traffic for an hour to get here every day
4) detracts from one of the few opportunities to actually open a harbor island for public use (every single island is either restricted or prohibitively expensive to visit)

What’s really going on here is government inertia, the usual pattern of Boston continuing the status quo because everyone involved is 1) too brainless to consider alternatives (has boston even once proposed ANY transportation-related project that wasn’t first conceived by the Callahan plan, or earlier?) , 2) influenced by NIMBYs (nobody wants this stuff in their neighborhood; q.v. San Francisco millionaires fighting a shelter in recent news), and 3) cloaked in all the liberal gossamer bullshit about helping people in need, when in reality it would be a lot more helpful to have services that were more convenient for those seeking them (and the money for this ridiculous project would be much better spent being pumped directly into services for substance use disorders and homeless programs).

I remained stunned that I have yet to see a single editorial bringing up these aspects. While I understand that most of the population has zero idea of the logistics of getting out there, and isn’t really concerned about stigma but perfectly happy to pat themselves on the back because they live in a city that’s going to spend millions for a wonderful project that allows them to check a big liberal box, I can only imagine that the remainder of anyone who could possibly have similar concerns to mine are all too aware of the fact that it’s realistically going to either be an island an hour away or nowhere at all when it comes to detoxes and shelters.
Being polite never helped anyone get clean.
 

Top