MA Casino Developments

Is there any room to build a road under the railroad bridge, along the riverfront, to connect the Monsanto/casino property with the Gateway strip mall?
 
Ron Newman said:
Is there any room to build a road under the railroad bridge, along the riverfront, to connect the Monsanto/casino property with the Gateway strip mall?
Click to expand...

http://goo.gl/maps/kMkOs

No. There's an inlet on the Gateway side that goes up almost to the foot of the Costco building. The only way to get around the tracks is to bridge over them. Chemical Ln. would not be difficult at all to elevate overhead on-alignment with the driveway splitting between Costco and Home Depot. Just as long as the developers are the ones paying for it.
 
DominusNovus said:
Fantastic. Run the line at that high elevation all the way past 99. Little but industrial parks until you get to rte 1 anyway, so it won't exactly ruin any neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

WTF???

Everett Terminal is the single largest shipping port in Greater Boston, and the largest ship-to-rail transload facility in the state. You are indeed "ruining the neighborhood" by fucking with the rail access to that facility. Right now it's set up so cars from the zillion little freight sidings inside the terminal get shunted onto the lead track by Santilli Circle and blocked together for the trip out.

And you wanna get rid of all their staging space and make the freights climb a fuckin' El straight out of the terminal to move anywhere??? How exactly do you propose paying for the liability insurance CSX and Pan Am would have to acquire to cover the risk of a train backsliding off the ramp, splitting a switch to one of the terminal sidings, and taking out that whole row of trailers sitting here. Because that's what they would need indemnity against if you take away their lead track at Everett Jct. Do that and all but the 5% of rail traffic that absolutely positively can't go out any other way reverts to truck...and you end up paying twice as much for a head of lettuce, an orange, and a banana because every big-chain supermarket in Eastern Mass. gets their fresh produce from CSX's daily Everett produce train.

THAT'S "ruining the neighborhood"...yours and everyone else's...for a Transit OCD casino stop that's probably not going to much outdraw Riverworks in future Blue Book boardings. Everett Terminal produces more daily revenue than all the not-Everett Terminal property south of 16 in town combined. It will still outgross hypothetical casino to a silly degree. And that's even before considering how much Massport wants to transform Greater Boston terminal traffic and scale up the water-to-rail transloads. Marine Industrial Park and Moran Terminal get more hype in the state dev plans because their rail spurs are currently inactive and they need more work to start contributing serious container traffic...but Everett is still the biggest that can scale up the biggest because it's got so much underutilized capacity. Scuzzy industrial Greater Everett is still where the revenue comes from to pay for 'nice things' Greater Everett, so waterfront beautification and blah blah isn't happening without the ugly terminal paying the bills.



Build the damn Urban Ring if there HAS to be a rail stop there that badly. You cannot build a commuter rail station here without fucking up every Newburyport/Rockport schedule, the biggest source of freight commerce left in Greater Boston, or basic Train Safety 101. Let it die. There isn't a "But what if?. . ." crazy transit pitch contraption you can build here that'll net a usable Purple Line stop. None. At all.
 
Double deck the commuter tracks on top of the freight tracks? :)

Just having some fun brainstorming how to connect this thing to the mbta network.
 
DominusNovus said:
Double deck the commuter tracks on top of the freight tracks? :)

Just having some fun brainstorming how to connect this thing to the mbta network.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest directing those brainstorming efforts to figuring out how to amass the political will to build the Urban Ring in more-or-less officially studied BRT or LRT form instead of wasting your time inventing billion-dollar Rube Goldberg commuter rail contraptions that 1) wreck the Newburyport/Rockport schedules to hell, 2) wreck the area's industrial and shipping base by crippling Everett Terminal access and flooding Everett with trucks, 3) are potentially unsafe, and 4) may potentially net a really shitty and compromised station (low platforms on an uphill slope elevated three dozen feet in the air exposed to a raw wind off the water???) that people will go out of their way not to use.

Really, that's not even Crazy Transit Pitches "useful if I had a wad of money big enough" type brainstorming. It's just crazy. You could build the real-deal UR through there for the same money as the Magic Levitating Casino El for 10x the better service.
 
If the casino teams up with Bike to the Sea (Northern Strand Community Trail) and East Coast Greenway Association, they could bring the pathway down through the casino property, and over the Mystic to Assembly Square [and Sullivan Square?]. I'm sure Wynn can drop dough for a recreational bridge and maybe a couple Hubway stations. I'm sure not many people will want to walk that distance or take Hubway to/from a Casino, but it would still receive plenty of usage, even if a fraction of the casino's visitors.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
If the casino teams up with Bike to the Sea (Northern Strand Community Trail) and East Coast Greenway Association, they could bring the pathway down through the casino property, and over the Mystic to Assembly Square [and Sullivan Square?]. I'm sure Wynn can drop dough for a recreational bridge and maybe a couple Hubway stations. I'm sure not many people will want to walk that distance or take Hubway to/from a Casino, but it would still receive plenty of usage, even if a fraction of the casino's visitors.
Click to expand...

They'd have to find an alternate route. The Saugus Branch is still active at the very end where the T stores its ballast pile (see Google Maps and all the boxcars sitting on it). Tracks end a little past Spalding St. and they park some trucks past the end of track. They can only get the trail as far as Wellington Ave. before pedestrians would have to detour across Santilli Circle.


Not that big a deal. If direct Gateway Ctr. access is that desireable the T can probably be bartered with to move its ballast pile. Perhaps to this siding on the other side of the river behind Charlestown garage where they currently store scrap rail? But you would have to bridge over the Eastern Route to get to the casino because a full-time public crossing would be verboten at the bottom of the bridge. That, however, could be taken care of by a road bridge for a Gateway Ctr. egress onto Broadway.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
Then I suggest directing those brainstorming efforts to figuring out how to amass the political will to build the Urban Ring in more-or-less officially studied BRT or LRT form instead of wasting your time inventing billion-dollar Rube Goldberg commuter rail contraptions that 1) wreck the Newburyport/Rockport schedules to hell, 2) wreck the area's industrial and shipping base by crippling Everett Terminal access and flooding Everett with trucks, 3) are potentially unsafe, and 4) may potentially net a really shitty and compromised station (low platforms on an uphill slope elevated three dozen feet in the air exposed to a raw wind off the water???) that people will go out of their way not to use.

Really, that's not even Crazy Transit Pitches "useful if I had a wad of money big enough" type brainstorming. It's just crazy. You could build the real-deal UR through there for the same money as the Magic Levitating Casino El for 10x the better service.
Click to expand...

How does a separate track for rapid transit mess up the freight infrastructure?
 
DominusNovus said:
How does a separate track for rapid transit mess up the freight infrastructure?
Click to expand...

If you get rid of or significantly shorten the Everett Terminal lead track that starts at Everett Jct. behind the T bus shops and turns into the terminal here just past Santilli Circle, it cannibalizes the staging room the freights have for blocking together trains for the return trip. The terminal has turnouts every couple hundred feet as the track winds around all the various transload yards. They have to shunt cars off all those sidings (and shunt empties off the outbound train into the turnouts), tow the full loads back to the lead track, and back them up on the double-track siding that runs between Santilli Circle and Second Ave. They may have to double-track that staging area around the curve in the future if Massport's planned terminal expansion leads to >30 car freights.

Then they need the entire lead track as their safety margin for accelerating onto the bridge without an engine stall, and as protection for a brake failure. If the brakes fail and the freight starts backsliding as a runaway train dispatch keeps the switch open so it rolls back onto the siding to coast to a stop. If it keeps going there are derailer devices on the track that will do a safe controlled derailment to stop it dead before it hits something. That's why there's this little median barrier between the lead track and the mainline. In a controlled derailment they want the freight cars to rest up against the median; on the mainline they'd just careen into the next track and kill a bunch of people in a passing commuter train. It's sort of like those runaway truck ramps you see on interstates in the mountains. If any of this infrastructure gets cannibalized CSX's, Pan Am's, and the T's insurance costs go through the roof, the freight carriers lose interest in serving the terminal with any halfway-long trains, and all those goods go to truck and slam 16 and 99 with an ugly truckapolypse. There is no freaking way the state is messing with that infrastructure. And if they tried Massport would probably file a court injunction to stop it and CSX + Pan Am might consider a lawsuit for the financial damage it would wreak on them.




The Urban Ring wouldn't touch any of that. It would hug the Gateway side of the tracks opposite the freights where there's lots of room. Then they'd widen underneath the crumbling 99 ramp overpasses, and probably move the tall electrical poles east of Santilli to re-space the tracks to fit it all. If it's a busway they probably also have to do a strip of land-taking on the north side of the ROW to fit eveything, which is why an LRT build is probably cheaper than BRT. Somewhere in Chelsea the UR would duck under the Eastern Route and switch to the south side of the ROW so it can turn out towards Chelsea St. and the airport. Again cheaper on LRT because the duck-under can be steeper and narrower than BRT.

BRT or LRT are completely doable. The T already has a design in mind. Just lose any notion of being able to fit a station here with commuter rail or DMU. It...is...not...happening. The schedule, freight, and safety impacts are too unacceptably high and the service would be too much less frequent than a bus.
 
Would it be OK to have a pedestrian-only crossing, no cars allowed, at or near the current Chemical Lane crossing? There are three such crossings on the Grand Junction next to MIT, all with gates and lights and bells.
 
Ron Newman said:
Would it be OK to have a pedestrian-only crossing, no cars allowed, at or near the current Chemical Lane crossing? There are three such crossings on the Grand Junction next to MIT, all with gates and lights and bells.
Click to expand...

No. If a 20-car freight has to dump the brakes because some kid on his bicycle flipped over on the tracks trying to cross they do not want the rear cars that are still rounding that superelevated curve on the Somerville side to jackknife and send a boxcar into the river. There is no other comparable place on the entire system with the unique blend of a curve on a tilt on a steep grade on a high bridge over navigable waters with junctions on both sides of the span.

For what it would cost the T, Pan Am, and CSX in liability insurance for a public crossing they could pay off the cost of an easy, basic footbridge in 10 years flat. Stop trying to force-fit something here. It ain't gonna happen.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
BRT or LRT are completely doable. The T already has a design in mind. Just lose any notion of being able to fit a station here with commuter rail or DMU. It...is...not...happening. The schedule, freight, and safety impacts are too unacceptably high and the service would be too much less frequent than a bus.
Click to expand...

Having a hard time visualizing the LRT route you described. And I haven't seen any maps other than that very vague one from the T itself. Any good links?
 
DominusNovus said:
Having a hard time visualizing the LRT route you described. And I haven't seen any maps other than that very vague one from the T itself. Any good links?
Click to expand...
The BRT and LRT alignments are the same, since they are being planned as the Urban Ring--which is a mode-neutral combination of stations and right of way. They foresee it starting as a BRT (bus) system, with the option of conversion to LRT (light rail) so once you've visualized the Urban Ring, you've visualized both its BRT and LRT incarnations.

This PDF called Urban Ring Phase 2 Factsheet is better-than-average in that on page 2 and 3 it shows the same "yellow line" as ever, but also has a more-detailed background map (you still have to be able to tell Rte 28 from Rte 99 on your own, sadly). It also gives some more detail on station maps.

The Wynn site is to the east of the "Assembly Square" station, and to the north of the leading "S" in the Sullivan Square *label* . You'll have to have two computer windows open and toggle back and forth between Bing (the birdseye can be very helpful) and the plan above.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
They'd have to find an alternate route. The Saugus Branch is still active at the very end where the T stores its ballast pile (see Google Maps and all the boxcars sitting on it). Tracks end a little past Spalding St. and they park some trucks past the end of track. They can only get the trail as far as Wellington Ave. before pedestrians would have to detour across Santilli Circle.


Not that big a deal. If direct Gateway Ctr. access is that desireable the T can probably be bartered with to move its ballast pile. Perhaps to this siding on the other side of the river behind Charlestown garage where they currently store scrap rail? But you would have to bridge over the Eastern Route to get to the casino because a full-time public crossing would be verboten at the bottom of the bridge. That, however, could be taken care of by a road bridge for a Gateway Ctr. egress onto Broadway.
Click to expand...

I think the MBTA's little ballast operation is of minimal concern and can be moved to a plethora of locations. (By the way, where does the ballast come in from? Truck? Side-dump rail cars?)

If they can consolidate offices and get the Cobble Hill Track back into use, there's a good place, as the Cobble Hill Wye is already in use. Easy access to any line without reversing on revenue track. Hell, there's even this triangular parcel: https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.38171,-71.076082&spn=0.00183,0.00284&t=h&z=19 Bound by the lead to the Moran Terminal track on one side, and a stub that used to lead down A St on the other.

And if they'd be careful blowing up Yard 8 for the GLX facilities, they could maintain the Wiley Track, plus freight sidings and a ballast area.
 
From today's Globe, presented without comment

Boston hints at blocking Everett casino plan
Says some development may be within city limits
By Mark Arsenault

In the race for the Greater Boston resort casino license, Las Vegas developer Steve Wynn seems to have some momentum, but the city of Boston may be trying to trip him up.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s administration is suggesting that some of Wynn’s planned Everett casino development may be in Boston, which would give the capital city far more rights under the law to affect the project.

That would include the right for Menino, who backs a competing casino plan at Suffolk Downs, to simply kill the Wynn proposal and eliminate a competitor.

Wynn said he is confident that Everett — where voters backed his plans in a landslide last month — is the only community that hosts his $1.3 billion proposal on the Mystic River waterfront, and he responded sharply to Boston’s suggestion otherwise.

Related
West Springfield expected to soon set casino vote
“Our company comes to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts expecting fairness and transparency, and we fail to understand Mayor Menino’s continued efforts to frustrate a project that has the power to transform the city of Everett, bringing economic opportunity that has eluded it for decades,” Wynn said in a statement released through his spokesman. “We understand that the mayor favors another horse in this race, but we intend to remain focused on our project in Everett. The governing legislation’s definition of a host community is straightforward. By any reading, the host community for our project is the city of Everett.”

‘We understand that the mayor favors another horse in this race, but we intend to remain focused on our project in Everett.’ —Steve Wynn, Las Vegas developer, in a prepared statement

Quote Icon
The Menino administration raised its claims in a July 11 letter to one of Wynn’s local consultants, in which the mayor’s Host Community Advisory Committee wrote that discussions with Wynn representatives and environmental documents Wynn filed with the state “lead us to the conclusion that Boston would appear to be a host community to the proposed Wynn resort.” The city raised a similar assertion in a letter to Richard Sullivan, the state’s energy and environmental affairs secretary.

Boston’s assertion rests on the odd shape of the city line, which darts across the Mystic River in a thin finger into the edge of the former Monsanto chemical site where Wynn intends to build.

The 2011 state casino law defines a host community simply as “a municipality in which a gaming establishment is located” or proposed. A “gaming establishment,” under the law, is “a gaming area and any other nongaming structure related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants or other amenities.”

Wynn’s plan calls for no buildings touching the city line, and Wynn has said he has no development plans in Boston. But the city is pursuing whether road, landscaping, or harbor improvements may cross the line and possibly elevate the city to a host community.

Political leaders of host communities have vast power to stonewall casinos by simply refusing to negotiate with the developer over the terms by which the community would accept a gambling business. That is how Foxborough officials forced Wynn to abandon resort plans in the town last year, which led to Wynn’s reemergence in Everett. Officials in Boxborough, Salisbury, and Holyoke have similarly forced casino developers to move on by declining to negotiate.

“I think the strategy would be to try to make Wynn go away,” said Clyde Barrow, a casino expert at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. “That would be the cleanest way.”

Brian Leary, chairman of Menino’s casino advisory committee, said the committee wrote to Wynn in search of information, such as traffic studies and harbor plans, in order to properly advise the mayor on the possible effects of the project on Boston.

“The Host Community Advisory Committee doesn’t know whether the city of Boston is a host community [to the Wynn project], but in order to properly do our job we need to find out more about the development, where elements of development are going to touch the city of Boston line or go over it,” he said. “That’s why we’re asking for information from Wynn. We need to better understand what their development does.”

Disputes about whether any municipality is a casino host community would be decided by the state gambling commission, said Stephen Crosby, the commission’s chairman.

If Boston is not a host community, it probably would qualify as a “surrounding” community under the law, which would entitle the city to negotiate compensation with Wynn for the possible effects of the development. Surrounding communities, however, cannot kill projects by refusing to negotiate.

Wynn and Suffolk Downs are competing for the sole Greater Boston resort casino license. There is one other competitor: Foxwoods, which is planning a casino in Milford.
Click to expand...

Article link here
 
It looks to me that so long as Wynn gets to his Casino via Horizon Way, that Wynn will have fully bypassed Boston's "Finger"

On Page 8 (the last page) of this planning document from Feb 2013, you can see--as a round-dotted red line--"the finger" of Boston that crosses the Mystic on both sides of the Route 99 Bridge. It shows the Wynn site as "Proposed Entertainment Complex" and you can see that to get to it from 99 *may* involve being "in Boston"

http://www.envisioneverett.com/harborplanpdfs/noticetoproceed.pdf

But if the boundary is right...that it terminates just south of Horizon Way, it seems to me that Wynn need never touch Boston. In the worst case, rather than improve any of Boston without permission, he can probably just build a wall to screen the view of the parts that Menino doesn't want him to be "in".
 
This is fucking absurd. No, I do not think Everett is the right place for the casino, I think its going to be a disaster for the city and traffic in the area. I still stand by my opinion that it should be built on the BCEC expansion land (or even partially on top of it).
That being said, I think Suffolk Downs is a worse spot. But that doesn't even matter, because Everett DOES think that the casino should be there, and for whatever reason overwhelmingly approved it. Menino is frankly being an asshole by using some historic anomaly to overstep his bounds and try to be mayor of an adjacent municipality. Even more so because its glaringly obvious he is not even doing it for the "right" reasons (transportation issues), but instead because he wants to get his way and screw anyone that doesn't agree. We are supposed to be a world class city and our mayor is throwing a tantrum because he didn't get what he wants.

Over these past few months I was just starting to like the guy too, and now he does this.
 
If >50% of the traffic is coming through Boston, but Boston is getting 0% of the revenue/property taxes/mitigation, doesn't he have the responsibility to speak up? Isn't that what Mayors do?
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
If >50% of the traffic is coming through Boston, but Boston is getting 0% of the revenue/property taxes/mitigation, doesn't he have the responsibility to speak up? Isn't that what Mayors do?
Click to expand...

He is certainly entitled to speak up and under the casino legislation he is entitled to negotiate a surrounding communities benefit package. The problem is he can't sit down with Wynn, while at the same time hard-charging for a casino at Suffolk Downs, which will send 100 percent of its traffic and effects through his city.

In the Wynn case, Menino is threatening to use dubious litigation to poison the well in favor of his own horse in the race. (Pun uintended)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top