MA Casino Developments

F-Line to Dudley said:
Pedestrian draws, especially that many in a short span, are probably going to be no-go on expense and maintenance complexity. That starts becoming a little bit Rube Goldberg-esque. It would honestly be cheaper to go super-tall over the dam at maximum mast height (as set by the Eastern Route commuter rail bridge) than to add moving parts. Super-tall has its own compromises because that's really, really fricking tall and will take complicated sets of switchback ramps to get up there. So don't start celebrating just yet. An unfavorable assessment could easily nix the straightest crow-flies route across the dam.

Sidewalk on the Eastern Route bridge is a lot more intriguing since the bridge has already got concrete emergency evacuation shoulders on it and tracks spread 2 feet wider from each other than on land. It's possible that modification of the side walls can cobble together enough space for a side path on 1 side + security fencing, and that the tracks can be compacted together a couple feet. Obviously if there's the slightest concern about safety margins that high up over the water it's an instant-reject from the T and FRA. For one, the superelevation on the Somerville side may be the reason why the track geometry has them spread 2 feet further apart. But it's worth a full-on investigation to answer that feasibility question because this is potentially the cheapest option of all if those shoulders are safely modifiable.

The important thing in all this is that they're going to try for it and at least answer that feasibility question definitively...and do so with proactive public-private partnership. That's a big deal by its lonesome that can only lead to more good things.
Click to expand...

All of the options are going to cost some multiple of millions. The 290 foot long North Point pedestrian and bike bridge seems to have cost about $10 million out of a $25 million dollar project for very rough comparison purposes.

Yes, usually you avoid draw bridges because of the added expense. But in this case you could end up with a better pedestrian and bike experience with a level crossing compared with a climb up to an elevated crossing, so at least worth considering.

The standalone option is also interesting. I would want to see about the feasibility of building tall over or alongside the dam potentially as a way of reducing the length of the necessary span and aligning with the existing access road there. Looks like you would have to get about 30 feet tall above the damn to match the 45 foot clearance of the train bridge.

Also, I hope they make some mention of connecting the last link of the river walk (on both sides of the river) as discussed earlier in the threads. Compared with a new pedestrian crossing closer to Assembly, that is a long long walk down to the Alford St Bridge and across and back over, but completing the river walk is something that should be done either way to really pull this area together.
 
Coyote137 said:
Having done a graduate-level project with the City of Everett last year, which included exploring the possibility of a crossing of the dam, I can say that DCR is likely to be a huge pain on this one. It was very difficult to get any assistance/straight answers from them, even coming in as someone who was effectively working for Everett. The casino and Assembly developments would presumably at least force them to give a definitive "no," or else reopen the community process they had started around 2007 to discuss possibilities.
Click to expand...

Turf and other stakeholder issues are always a bit interesting to consider... I am guessing that the dam people would simply rather not have to deal with pedestrian and bike traffic and will come up with a lot of reasons not to do it there.

The death of a person last year crossing a drawbridge would be on their minds for that option. Safety considerations adds to the stress of operating the locks. But a fixed height bridge along the dam would also potentially obstruct the view from the control tower for the locks if you built it on the North side, which would be a negative... easily corrected with cameras, but they won't want to have to rely on cameras. Build it on the South side, close to the tower and the view from the tower is not necessarily obstructed, but there are some offices in the support building along that side so whomever manages the dam wouldn't really want pedestrians looking in there from a bridge alongside.

Build a pedestrian/bike bridge elevated 30' above the dam along the North side of that administration building along with a nice new control tower right next to it and maybe you could begin to address the concerns of the people that operate the dam and locks there without adding to the complexity by having to operate a drawbridge.
 
Lawl:

Judge Scolds Boston for Gaming Commission Lawsuit
As the Wynn turns.

By Garrett Quinn | Boston Daily | August 4, 2015, 6:06 p.m.

On Monday, a Suffolk Superior Court judge trashed the Walsh administration’s lawsuit against the Massachusetts State Gaming Commission for violating court rules and using its courts filings in such a way that they mimicked a public relations campaign.

Judge Janet L. Sanders said in a two page order that the city improperly filed numerous documents in July and ordered them impounded. Sanders said that “the real motive for these filings” was to appeal to the media, not make an argument in court.

Boston filed documents in July arguing there was “bad faith” and “improper behavior” in the eastern Massachusetts casino licensing process.

Sanders said that the filings were made in such a way that the court, along with the defendant, could not review them in time before the hearing.

“The defendant, which had no real opportunity to respond to the voluminous submissions, orally moved to strike these pleadings. Agreeing that the pleadings were entirely improper, the court allowed that motion,” said Sanders.

Sanders strong words about Boston’s lawsuit prompted the commission to file for dismissal of the lawsuit on July 31. The motion described portions of the city’s lawsuit as “scattershot” and “extraordinarily long.”

...

Full article: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/08/04/judge-scolds-boston-lawsuit/
Click to expand...
 
AmericanKryptonite said:
This is awesome. I suggested this about a year ago on the Assembly Row thread. It just makes sense. However Somerville's mayor is morally opposed to casinos and I wouldn't be surprised if he used all of his power to block this.
Click to expand...

Krypto -- the Horse is literally out of the barn -- watch and listen to the ads for PlainRidge Massachusetts first and only casino also touted as the closest to Metro Boston -- remember that under the Casino Law PlainRidge was to be a "slots parlor" -- the only thing missing from a true casino there is real, hands-on table games -- the "Electronic Slots" simulate poker, roulette, etc.

Fearless Prediction -- "Wynn Everett/Boston" will open within the next two years
 
whighlander said:
Fearless Prediction -- "Wynn Everett/Boston" will open within the next two years
Click to expand...

Given the state of the soil and site conditions alone I would predict that there may be some foundation work completed two years from now.

Assuming that the developer has not thrown up his hands, cut his losses, and left town.
 
datadyne007 said:
Big news, Wynn will subsidize OL service and study a pedestrian bridge to Assembly:
Click to expand...

I'm late to the party, but just saw this. This would be a game changer for the Orange Line and sorely needed. It's a line that makes up 38% of our HRT trips (203,000 passengers/day). Morning rush frequency of 8 minutes and weekday evening frequency of 10 minutes is not acceptable for a key HRT route. This will dramatically improve the line that is way too often overlooked, yet connects the major hubs of:

  • Forest Hills
  • Ruggles
  • Back Bay
  • Downtown Crossing
  • North Station
  • Sullivan Square
  • Malden

I know you all know this, but I am constantly amazed how the Orange Line gets second class treatment even though each of those seven stations are major local hubs that could NOT function without the Orange Line having good frequency!
 
Two years is an aggressive schedule if they started construction tomorrow. Even without remediation. Casinos are constructed under accelerated schedules typically to start recouping costs lickity split, but there are limits. The poker might be no-limit, but construction schedules have them.
 
Mongo said:
I love the idea but it doesn't really work when a OL train drops 100 people and the gondola can carry 10. Unless they go with one of those huge ones.
Click to expand...

FWIW the largest gondola systems can carry up to 5,000 pax per hour, per direction....so you could clear that whole OL train in less than two minutes.

And for comparison, the 'Emirates Air Line' over the Thames can do 2,500 (though actual utilization is much lower than that).
 
bigeman312 said:
I'm late to the party, but just saw this. This would be a game changer for the Orange Line and sorely needed. It's a line that makes up 38% of our HRT trips (203,000 passengers/day). Morning rush frequency of 8 minutes and weekday evening frequency of 10 minutes is not acceptable for a key HRT route. This will dramatically improve the line that is way too often overlooked, yet connects the major hubs of:

  • Forest Hills
  • Ruggles
  • Back Bay
  • Downtown Crossing
  • North Station
  • Sullivan Square
  • Malden

I know you all know this, but I am constantly amazed how the Orange Line gets second class treatment even though each of those seven stations are major local hubs that could NOT function without the Orange Line having good frequency!
Click to expand...

Wynn's not increasing the frequency. The new car order is. Since 1987 the OL has been running at much lower headway than it did before 1987 because that was when they went to 6 cars...but didn't expand the fleet beyond the same 120 cars as today.

1987: 120 ÷ 4 = 30 trainsets available
Today: 120 ÷ 6 = 20 trainsets available (16 sets required for peak)
2019: 152 ÷ 6 = 25+ trainsets available

I don't know what the peak-hour trainset requirements were 28 years ago, but if you keep the same assumption of 80% of available fleet goes on-duty for the peak shift that means a luxurious 20% increase in service density.


All Wynn is doing is extending the operating hours of the peak shift past 7:00 by chucking in enough money for them to staff up with more operators after the shift change. The service increases themselves come from the new cars.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Two years is an aggressive schedule if they started construction tomorrow. Even without remediation. Casinos are constructed under accelerated schedules typically to start recouping costs lickity split, but there are limits. The poker might be no-limit, but construction schedules have them.
Click to expand...

By "jobs". I think the legislature meant lawyers when they passed the casino law.
 
tangent said:
I think the footbridge on the Amelia Earhart dam option (or a separate structure right along there) has the most benefits. It would necessarily tie together the Gateway Center, Assembly Row, and the Everett casino for pedestrians and bikes all knit together with river walks and parks on both sides of the river with the assembly station in the middle. Also, plugged into the Northern Strand Community Trail, by the way.
Click to expand...


I would also like to point out that we are talking about fewer than 200 boats up river from the dam. A responsible cost analysis should include options that might interfere with boat travel or relocate marinas down river
 
The Roosevelt Island Tram cost $5m to build in 1976. Adjusted for inflation that's roughly $20m today. Some quick specs from wiredNY:

Capacity of gondola: 125 persons
Number of trips per day – weekday: 120
Number of trips per day – weekend: 100
Cost per ride: $2.00
Cost of construction, 1976: $5 million
Distance from water at highest point: 250 feet
Distance from station to station: 3,100 feet
Average time of trip: 4 1/2 minutes
Top speed of tram: 16 miles per hour

The distance from the Assembly T stop to behind the Cosco (best landing site for the casino and Gateway IMO, plus a potential urban ring station location) is ~2,200 feet, so it's comparable.
 
davem said:
The Roosevelt Island Tram cost $5m to build in 1976. Adjusted for inflation that's roughly $20m today.
Click to expand...
Can't use CPI Inflation, but rather must use wage-inflation/Building index for a better estimate. (ENR has this, but I'm not a subscriber)

For comparison:

The RI Tram cost $25m to rehab in 2010 (to, among other things, permit independent ops of the North and South gondolas), (but they reused the towers, plazas, etc)

The Portland Aerial Tram cost $57m as a new-build project (from a seaport light rail to a hilltop medical facility)

So I'd swag a full build aerial tram across the Mystic at $60m
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
Can't use CPI Inflation, but rather must use wage-inflation/Building index for a better estimate. (ENR has this, but I'm not a subscriber)

For comparison:

The RI Tram cost $25m to rehab in 2010 (to, among other things, permit independent ops of the North and South gondolas), (but they reused the towers, plazas, etc)

The Portland Aerial Tram cost $57m as a new-build project (from a seaport light rail to a hilltop medical facility)

So I'd swag a full build aerial tram across the Mystic at $60m
Click to expand...

You guys still talking about a tram over the mystic? The view of Costco, a rusty train bridge and the power station just not good enough from the ground for you? Pretty sure that you would want a aerial tram from someplace a bit more scenic.
 
Most city elements, individually, are not scenic. Hard to name anything nice you see from the Roosevelt Is. tram, but it is packed with tourists at non-commute times.

Get 180 feet above anything and it looks cool. It has a river and casino, Assembly/partners and a Boston skyline to look at --as good or better than either Assembly or the Casino themselves have.
 
If Google Earth's tilt feature is accurate, then it's actually a fantastic view.
 
Yeah, the trick is that the view from a tram is sideways, not down. Just sayin'...
 
I'll post a view from my roof later tonight. It's fantastic.
 
The view of downtown when you're going over the commuter rail bridge is pretty tight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top