MA Casino Developments

Since its a casino, I could see a gondla going straight into the lobby being within the cards (haha I made a pun). But as already stressed, the transit options are supurb. Gamblers, who are likely to drive in, are going to trickle in and out. People going to shows, just like anyone who goes to events at the garden, fenway, or the numerous things that happen on the common, will likely choose the T as their mode. This is boston, not rural ct, depressed ac, or historically always autocentric vegas.

Once the GL is at Sullivan, would it be that much more expensive to bridge it over the Mystic? That puts it within a literal stone's throw of the new casino, and really sets the stage for an Eastern Branch GL extension to Chelsea. Hell, bring it all the way to Chelsea now. (And, lest I ask for too much, to the airport too!)

Seriously, if that's the kind of transit improvement the Everett casino could engender, then count me in support.

The piers for the old OL branch are still there…
 
Once the GL is at Sullivan, would it be that much more expensive to bridge it over the Mystic? That puts it within a literal stone's throw of the new casino, and really sets the stage for an Eastern Branch GL extension to Chelsea. Hell, bring it all the way to Chelsea now. (And, lest I ask for too much, to the airport too!)

Seriously, if that's the kind of transit improvement the Everett casino could engender, then count me in support.

Yes. Very. The Everett Terminal freight tracks mean the new ROW has to go on the west/north (Gateway Ctr.) side of the Eastern Route tracks when it crosses. So that means (see Google Maps here):

-- If you build an immediate adjacent bridge on the north side of the current one you have to fill in a significant amount of earth on the marshes of either shore to build abutments. That's a tough EIS'ing.

-- If you insist on having a cross-platform transfer to Orange at Assembly that puts this bridge further north with a sharper right turn to get across the river you have tougher-still EIS'ing because of the little inlet on the Everett/Gateway side and impacts around the locks. What's most important...swinging closest to the OL station or sticking closest to the bridge and conceding a 400 ft. walkway for the OL transfer?

-- If you opt to take the current Eastern Route bridge for rapid transit and instead move the RR to an adjacent southerly span you can recycle the old earth pack from the demolished RR drawbridge and avoid a lot of EIS'ing pain. But you've got to be sure this is light rail and not BRT over the old bridge because it may need modification to handle the turning radius of buses safely on a water crossing with steep grades and a curve. And that means you have to make a decision now on which mode the full Urban Ring will ultimately be...because if that bridge ain't wide enough for BRT they can't keep their butts covered with "transitional busways" that can be modified later into a rail line or deferring that decision for another day. Committing up-front to their mode now and forever more or less requires a new UR study.



You get the picture. The bridge is an extremely consequential decision for the UR and a years-long study unto itself with all the environmental, modal, and station transfer considerations impacted forever by that one bridge decision. I don't see how they can make that call without reopening the UR studies and spending a few years doing that homework because leaving the long-term implications unstudied is justifiably concerning and unwise.

Simplify. Get to Sullivan first where it's easy, cheap, and at the rate the GLX carhouse is delayed possibly doable in tandem if the casino lights a fire under the state to muscle in the rest of the carhouse funding. Then let completion of that project to within a couple blocks of the Somerville shoreline start the inertia of motion on picking the UR studies back up off the floor.

I just fear if you attempt anything more ambitious than easy Sullivan the extra overhead of all the what-if's they have to answer about UR provisioning--something they haven't studied at all in 10 years--becomes too big an inhibitor and nothing gets done. It's much better to take the quick-strike that ties Green to Sullivan and the casino shuttle on a timetable that might get it done within a year or two of the casino opening vs. biting off too much for something that has little hope of getting out of study or design paperwork for 10 years and waaaaay too many outs for cold feet to back away. Deal with the devil you know and take the easy points first.
 
Once the GL is at Sullivan

What? The GL is going up the Lowell Line and the Fitchburg Line ... neither of which go to or through Sullivan Square.
 
What? The GL is going up the Lowell Line and the Fitchburg Line ... neither of which go to or through Sullivan Square.

The GLX carhouse is being plunked right here. That warehouse with the tan-color roof and the tanker car sitting on its freight siding is getting nuked to make room for it. The Medford Branch and Union Branch split will be a triple junction with the carhouse leads diverging east while the Union Branch goes west. 2 of those 4 freight tracks that curve around the Innerbelt are getting cannibalized for it, and the yard will wrap around to just 300-400 ft. shy of the 3rd Ave. grade crossing. It's about 2000 ft. of new track construction and half of the concrete to be poured at the flyover junction.

That's 40% of the way to Sullivan signed, sealed, and delivered as part of GLX. You'll almost be able to see Sullivan station straight ahead in the distance from the end of track. And that's intentional as an Urban Ring LRT provision. All they have to do is make sure they don't cheap out on the final design (still not done) and provision it so those tracks can someday be converted to revenue service from Lechmere.
 
So not too get to far off topic but this is interesting. So you say you can get up to Sullivan on the glx, but that in itself would be redundant in a near useless way, but if you built another span over to Everett on the Chelsea line you could build a stop behind gateway/ Casino. The. How far could you( thinking about the urban ring) that the 4 tracks and get light rail to Chelsea stop and maybe beyond. It looks like a lot of empty industrial on the path. A new green line bridge parallel to the cr over the mystic seems the main big ticket.

EDIT: I didn't see shepards comments on the previous page which outlined the same scenario apologies.
 
So not too get to far off topic but this is interesting. So you say you can get up to Sullivan on the glx, but that in itself would be redundant in a near useless way, but if you built another span over to Everett on the Chelsea line you could build a stop behind gateway/ Casino. The. How far could you( thinking about the urban ring) that the 4 tracks and get light rail to Chelsea stop and maybe beyond. It looks like a lot of empty industrial on the path. A new green line bridge parallel to the cr over the mystic seems the main big ticket.

EDIT: I didn't see shepards comments on the previous page which outlined the same scenario apologies.


The whole of the Eastern Route was a 4-track RR. Assuming the SL Chelsea busway gets built as designed to Mystic Mall, continuing this circuit past Sullivan to the Mall only leaves three critical decisions to make:

1) Crossing over/under from the west side of the Orange Line tracks to the east/Mystic side around Assembly. Those 2 freight tracks at Sullivan fizz out in the overgrowth here...on Assembly Sq. Dr. opposite side of the tracks from those landmark "big tits" buildings. That's an easy one to engineer...quick flyover or quick duck-under. But do you do it at bus dimensions or LRT? And how close do you attempt to get to Assembly Station before having to hang a right towards the bridge? (NOTE: There are not many satisfying answers to the last question, so be prepared to compromise.)

2) The bridge. Where, how wide, how difficult an EIS'ing? How do your requirements for the placement of Assembly station impact the bridge trajectory? (NOTE: If you haven't been ready to compromise yet...you will now.)

3) Crossing to the other side of the Eastern Route tracks. You start on the north/Gateway Ctr. side of it because of the Everett Terminal freight tracks. Then somewhere between 2nd St. and the Mall you have to duck under to the south side to meet Chelsea station and the busway. Where do you do it, and does where you choose to do it require any land acquisition? Do you do it at BRT or LRT width?





Path of least resistance is probably:

1) Don't get too cutesy about Assembly because trying to get too close to the OL platforms overcomplicates the bridge. Get within about 500 ft. of the station then fly over/under the Orange tracks. Touch down in the park and put a simple platform there. Make a covered connecting walkway to the OL stations and egress to all the Assembly attractions. It's shorter length than the Wellington garage walkway by a couple hundred feet, so don't feel like it's necessary to distort the build to deliver Assemblyites door-to-door in a covered chariot. (Satisfying?...no. Necessary...yes. Good enough...absolutely.)

2) Build a new bridge for the Eastern Route on its old alignment to the pre-1988 drawbridge, about 100 ft. south of the current bridge. The footprints of the old bridge are clearly visible on both sides of the river. It would be a shorter span than the current one because it hits terra firma on the Everett side sooner while the current bridge stays in the marsh for a few hundred more feet. Move earth to build up the embankment grades, build the span same general height as the current bridge. Shift the tracks over. Then use the old bridge for rapid transit. LRT, since we know that doesn't require any mods to the bridge width or erecting tall highway guardrails. This more or less decides for you how close you can swing to Assembly, but it's the cheapest and most straightforward way to get it done. (You will now feel at peace with your "good enough" decision about Assembly station placement in #1 looking at what a boondoggle this bridge would be any other way.)

3) Switch sides hereabouts. 3rd Ave. is a useless grade crossing that deserves to be outright blocked off and closed today, so nobody cares about the road. Parking lot on the north side on 3rd is a good enough place to portal-down, grass on the south side other side of 3rd is good enough place to portal-up on approach to the upcoming Mall stop. Closed-off 3rd St. itself ends up being three-quarters of the required space, and it avoids the stream to the west. Again, much easier to do in a compact space on an LRT fixed guideway than with BRT turning radius.



New stations north of Sullivan and west of Mystic Mall/Silver Line:
-- Assembly. Or close enough in the park with the sheltered walkway to the OL and street level.
-- Everett Casino/Gateway Ctr. Overhead walkway (or roadway) connects the Gateway and casino together approx. where that official-use-only grade crossing is. Ramp up from the platform.
-- Santilli Circle. Walk straight off the train onto the Saugus Branch ROW trail to the neighborhood. Paths connecting to Paris St. east and footbridge up to the Broadway overpass. Maybe center the station closer to Broadway.

I don't really think any of these need to be prepayment stations. Unless the casino outright pays for it. So unless that's now some sacred commandment these don't--and shouldn't--need to be full-staffed or full-enclosed when effective proof-of-payment technology exists.



Once you touch down at the Mall you're on the Silver Line busway. Theoretically you could throw rails-in-pavement and do both co-mingled east of the Mall...but let's assume we don't want any Frankenstein stuff and it flips to LRT-only. Assume the 2nd St., Everett Ave., and Spruce St. grade crossings have all been eliminated by this point with road bridges leaving light-traffic 6th/Arlington underneath Route 1 as the only uneliminable. There's the rest of your Ring ROW to the Chelsea St. bridge, no-drama.


Scoot street-running across the bridge. Movable bridges are a non-challenge for trolleys. Turn out onto the Eastie Haul Rd. being built now on the RR ROW...same one the Silver Line is going to use. 2 choices:

-- (1) The cheap one: rails-in-pavement, street-running. It's restricted to truck and transit traffic, so this is not a traffic problem for a GL branch that has branchline headways.
-- (2) The expensive one: Scoop out the earthen embankment along Brennan St. to re-widen the ROW to its former width, widen 2 overhead bridges, and shift the haul road a few feet to the side so there's grade separation. This cut used to be exactly as wide as Track 61 + Southie Haul Rd. was before it gradually got filled in, and the Haul Rd. construction isn't scooping out all of the fill. It's an expensive do-over of the retaining walls and a few blocks of haul road to get the grade separation, but yes it is feasible.
-- (1), then (2) some other day. Do it the cheap way rails-in-pavement, then when you string the rest of the Ring together and crank the service density up another few notches go back and finish the grade separation. The whole Ring ain't gonna be built at once. If this is the first piece of it to go online it might be another 1-2 decades before Cambridge is shoveling riders into Brickbottom Jct. off the Grand Junction. You've got time to breathe here.
 
Its always bothered me that they are nuking a business to make the artists lofts happy.

http://digboston.com/boston-news-opinions/2010/07/29230/

Does anybody know the exact location of the original car house proposal that was nuked in favor of the MS Walker/Commuter Rail facilty site. I know this is OT for casinos, so if you want to post the answer in the green line extension thread, I'll look for it there.
 
More towns eye casino $
Claim projects wouldimpact infrastructure
By:Jack Encarnacao
The state Gaming Commission is bracing for a rush of petitions from cities and towns that believe casino developers have wrongly denied them surrounding community status, which entitles them to payments to make up for the stress casinos would put on their roads and infrastructure.

Malden and Somerville have filed petitions for surrounding community status to Mohegan Sun’s casino in Revere, and Northampton has filed for MGM’s Springfield project. Chelsea is expected to file for Wynn Resorts’ Everett project before Monday’s deadline.

Mohegan reps met for the first time Tuesday with Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who’s said he may insist on host community status for both the Revere and Everett proposals, which would require a filing with the gaming panel and voter approval before either casino could be licensed.

The Gaming Commission plans to decide Feb. 6 who is and isn’t a surrounding community. If communities disagree, they can seek arbitration.

“We look at the facts and we make a decision,” Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby said. “If we decide they’re not a surrounding community, because essentially there’s no material adverse impact in our judgment, then it’s over.”

Mohegan has designated Boston, Winthrop and Chelsea surrounding communities to its project at Suffolk Downs in Revere, and has offered a separate joint agreement to Malden, Saugus, Lynn, Salem, and Medford. Still, Malden has petitioned the commission for surrounding community status.

“Malden shares its entire easterly border with the city of Revere, and it is reasonably foreseeable that Mohegan’s proposed development will impact Malden’s infrastructure,” city solicitor Kathryn Fallon wrote in a memo dated Tuesday, which was obtained by the Herald.

Mohegan and Suffolk Downs spokesman Chip Tuttle said a joint agreement was presented because impacts were all transportation-related, and the deal aims to “create a way for all of them to share in a resource that would help with regional transportation issues.”

Tuttle said Mohegan had a “great initial meeting” with Walsh and members of his staff Tuesday. Walsh’s office did not comment on the meeting.

Chelsea city manager Jay Ash said Wynn Resorts — which designated only Boston and Medford as surrounding communities — abruptly stopped negotiations six weeks ago.

“I was befuddled and incensed,” Ash said. “It’s kind of preposterous to think that communities that are within a mile of a gaming establishment would not be considered surrounding communities.”

Wynn spokesman Michael Weaver said, “We determined that Chelsea would not be negatively impacted by our project and consequently would not be designated a surrounding community.”

http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2014/01/more_towns_eye_casino

I'm still not sold on the Everett location: I still believe we will see more headaches with the casino than benefits for people living around these areas. Especially on 93.

But F-Line Dudley does make alot of sense. The casino groups should hire F-Line for his Understanding of better infrastructure.
I would still VOTE NO for the casino in Everett location in the end.
 
The whole of the Eastern Route was a 4-track RR. Assuming the SL Chelsea busway gets built as designed to Mystic Mall, continuing this circuit past Sullivan to the Mall only leaves three critical decisions to make:

1) Crossing over/under from the west side of the Orange Line tracks to the east/Mystic side around Assembly. Those 2 freight tracks at Sullivan fizz out in the overgrowth here...on Assembly Sq. Dr. opposite side of the tracks from those landmark "big tits" buildings. That's an easy one to engineer...quick flyover or quick duck-under. But do you do it at bus dimensions or LRT? And how close do you attempt to get to Assembly Station before having to hang a right towards the bridge? (NOTE: There are not many satisfying answers to the last question, so be prepared to compromise.)

2) The bridge. Where, how wide, how difficult an EIS'ing? How do your requirements for the placement of Assembly station impact the bridge trajectory? (NOTE: If you haven't been ready to compromise yet...you will now.)

3) Crossing to the other side of the Eastern Route tracks. You start on the north/Gateway Ctr. side of it because of the Everett Terminal freight tracks. Then somewhere between 2nd St. and the Mall you have to duck under to the south side to meet Chelsea station and the busway. Where do you do it, and does where you choose to do it require any land acquisition? Do you do it at BRT or LRT width?





Path of least resistance is probably:

1) Don't get too cutesy about Assembly because trying to get too close to the OL platforms overcomplicates the bridge. Get within about 500 ft. of the station then fly over/under the Orange tracks. Touch down in the park and put a simple platform there. Make a covered connecting walkway to the OL stations and egress to all the Assembly attractions. It's shorter length than the Wellington garage walkway by a couple hundred feet, so don't feel like it's necessary to distort the build to deliver Assemblyites door-to-door in a covered chariot. (Satisfying?...no. Necessary...yes. Good enough...absolutely.)

2) Build a new bridge for the Eastern Route on its old alignment to the pre-1988 drawbridge, about 100 ft. south of the current bridge. The footprints of the old bridge are clearly visible on both sides of the river. It would be a shorter span than the current one because it hits terra firma on the Everett side sooner while the current bridge stays in the marsh for a few hundred more feet. Move earth to build up the embankment grades, build the span same general height as the current bridge. Shift the tracks over. Then use the old bridge for rapid transit. LRT, since we know that doesn't require any mods to the bridge width or erecting tall highway guardrails. This more or less decides for you how close you can swing to Assembly, but it's the cheapest and most straightforward way to get it done. (You will now feel at peace with your "good enough" decision about Assembly station placement in #1 looking at what a boondoggle this bridge would be any other way.)

3) Switch sides hereabouts. 3rd Ave. is a useless grade crossing that deserves to be outright blocked off and closed today, so nobody cares about the road. Parking lot on the north side on 3rd is a good enough place to portal-down, grass on the south side other side of 3rd is good enough place to portal-up on approach to the upcoming Mall stop. Closed-off 3rd St. itself ends up being three-quarters of the required space, and it avoids the stream to the west. Again, much easier to do in a compact space on an LRT fixed guideway than with BRT turning radius.



New stations north of Sullivan and west of Mystic Mall/Silver Line:
-- Assembly. Or close enough in the park with the sheltered walkway to the OL and street level.
-- Everett Casino/Gateway Ctr. Overhead walkway (or roadway) connects the Gateway and casino together approx. where that official-use-only grade crossing is. Ramp up from the platform.
-- Santilli Circle. Walk straight off the train onto the Saugus Branch ROW trail to the neighborhood. Paths connecting to Paris St. east and footbridge up to the Broadway overpass. Maybe center the station closer to Broadway.

I don't really think any of these need to be prepayment stations. Unless the casino outright pays for it. So unless that's now some sacred commandment these don't--and shouldn't--need to be full-staffed or full-enclosed when effective proof-of-payment technology exists.



Once you touch down at the Mall you're on the Silver Line busway. Theoretically you could throw rails-in-pavement and do both co-mingled east of the Mall...but let's assume we don't want any Frankenstein stuff and it flips to LRT-only. Assume the 2nd St., Everett Ave., and Spruce St. grade crossings have all been eliminated by this point with road bridges leaving light-traffic 6th/Arlington underneath Route 1 as the only uneliminable. There's the rest of your Ring ROW to the Chelsea St. bridge, no-drama.


Scoot street-running across the bridge. Movable bridges are a non-challenge for trolleys. Turn out onto the Eastie Haul Rd. being built now on the RR ROW...same one the Silver Line is going to use. 2 choices:

-- (1) The cheap one: rails-in-pavement, street-running. It's restricted to truck and transit traffic, so this is not a traffic problem for a GL branch that has branchline headways.
-- (2) The expensive one: Scoop out the earthen embankment along Brennan St. to re-widen the ROW to its former width, widen 2 overhead bridges, and shift the haul road a few feet to the side so there's grade separation. This cut used to be exactly as wide as Track 61 + Southie Haul Rd. was before it gradually got filled in, and the Haul Rd. construction isn't scooping out all of the fill. It's an expensive do-over of the retaining walls and a few blocks of haul road to get the grade separation, but yes it is feasible.
-- (1), then (2) some other day. Do it the cheap way rails-in-pavement, then when you string the rest of the Ring together and crank the service density up another few notches go back and finish the grade separation. The whole Ring ain't gonna be built at once. If this is the first piece of it to go online it might be another 1-2 decades before Cambridge is shoveling riders into Brickbottom Jct. off the Grand Junction. You've got time to breathe here.

If it's light rail, why are we so concerned with grade crossings? It's not like there's a ton on the Eastern Route as it is...
 
Does anybody know the exact location of the original car house proposal that was nuked in favor of the MS Walker/Commuter Rail facilty site. I know this is OT for casinos, so if you want to post the answer in the green line extension thread, I'll look for it there.

They looked at these in the final (Round 3) site screening: http://www.greenlineextension.org/documents/vehSupp/GLX_FEIR_Fig2-1_061510.pdf

-- Pan Am Yard 8, the tiny staffed freight yard off Washington St. That one got howls of protest for proximity to the neighborhood, for understandable reasons. I used to live up the hill a few blocks so this was my old stomping grounds; I wouldn't have been too thrilled either they couldn't do something better with that golden station-abutting parcel behind Cobble Hill Plaza.

-- Boston Engine Terminal. South side on the Northpoint property line. Northpoint developers complained (and Pan Am didn't like it because it could affect the prices they fetched for Northpoint development). And pinched every inch of open land for adding any more commuter rail storage (bad because BET has a little bit of a storage problem as is trying to fit all the new coaches for testing). Northpoint's concerns are way overblown, but the CR yard storage concern is very legit.

-- The MS Walker site.


The ones that got eliminated in Round 2 were Pat's Tow Lot (Somerville opposition, swallows a sought-after TOD parcel that'll be hot after the McGrath overpass comes down), and several Crazy Transit Pitch schemes of building an elevated Green Line yard on top of the commuter rail yard that were hideously expensive and engineering-infeasible.

And then Round 1 was a bunch of throw-shit-at-the-wall stuff trying to shove a yard near each individual GLX stop and see who'd scream the loudest. 11 total, only the final 3 + Pat's passed the laugh test.



So...MS Walker, a reliable Pan Am freight customer, is getting booted out of town. And there are a whole slew of other freight traffic impacts that haven't been decided. And hence the thing is pretty far from final design and the track layout from the junction still approximate. The only thing that's certain is the shape of it...it will follow those 2 northernmost freight tracks and wrap around the MS Walker property to 3rd Ave. As discussed almost in eyesight of the Sullivan platforms in the distance after it rounds the curve.

Operationally it's very good. Expansion space for more storage is pretty good. Urban Ring provisioning very very good if they don't bollix the still-undecided track layout. Buffering from the neighbors and all the best Brickbottom mixed-use parcels is good. Land use...mediocre, very mediocre. Freight impacts: bad and messy...KO's MS Walker, access provisions need lots of work or could screw Pan Am, Everett Terminal, and Boston Sand & Gravel out of capacity for taking long freight trains during business hours that can park out of the way of commuter rail peak hours.
 
If it's light rail, why are we so concerned with grade crossings? It's not like there's a ton on the Eastern Route as it is...

The Chelsea gauntlet? That's the #1 bottleneck on the Eastern Route, and one of the Top 3 bottlenecks on the entire commuter rail with the 25 MPH restriction from Everett to Eastern Ave. Throw a second mode with sub-10 minute headways and you've got a traffic problem on all but the quietest streets.

-- Eastern Ave.'s the #1 recommended elimination on the entire system (though that's outside the scope of the Urban Ring ROW).

-- Everett Ave. is maybe the second or third worst on the CR. Speed-restricted, exceedingly dangerous potential for backed-up cars getting stuck on the crossing, and has large carpocalypse/buspocalypse potential as the Mall area grows. That one needs to get whacked with the Silver Line or it's going to get very messy here. Urgent priority.

-- 2nd is fine. Until you start throwing 5-10 min. headway trolleys through it. Then the traffic starts to bottleneck. Volumes here are gonna grow with the Mall rear entrance as that site TOD's itself up in scale, and this is the easterly truck route into Everett Terminal so all terminal growth affects the truck loads (and safety considerations of frequent trucks crossing frequent trolleys). Doesn't ever need it for commuter rail only, but will for UR.

-- 3rd is useless because the road is only a back driveway, so clipping it is a low-impact safety improvement that saves $$$ not maintaining a duplicate, unnecessary crossing. Will cost more $$$ to maintain as higher-frequency train service on either mode beats up the crossing surface. These kinds of nip/tucks have been done many other places on the CR with each improvements project (much moreso around unnecessary private driveways)...you just never hear about it because the crossings are so obscure or negligible. The main reason it hasn't been done yet is that the crossing is the literal town line between Everett and Chelsea, so there's a one-hand-doesn't-know-the-other effect on hashing it out. Not a big issue, just low all-around motivation.

-- Spruce is surplus-to-requirement. Main reason to do it is that if all others west are getting prioritized eliminations with this build and it's a full track-speed block between stations it's easier to get it over with when spending the megabucks on this project. One less place the trolleys have to slow down. Plus...look at that barren block. If that construction/reconfig spurs some development on those weedy parking lots, all the better. But I agree that if money for frills is tight, this is the one of least concern to hedge against.

-- 6th/Arlington, as noted, is impossible to eliminate because of Route 1 + the intersection. But trolley probably brings back a station stop here, so it works.


Also keep in mind...all of these are relatively cheap to do as road overpasses because of the ample incline space and lack of abutting buildings or intersections to accommodate. The Eastern Ave. elimination only priced out at $20M in the North Shore Transit Improvements study for a 4-lane road with more invasive intersection reconfiguration. Everett Ave., 2nd, and Spruce would all be considerably cheaper, and 3rd a $0 closure. Bang-for-buck on doing it is excellent, esp. with the headways you're talking. I would agree with you if every one of these was individually going to cost >$20M, but you're talking two-thirds or less that for Everett, sub-$10M (in 2014 dollars) for 2nd, and sub-$5M for structurally barren Spruce. If that's the difference between a 15 MPH avg. trolley speed between stops with crossing pauses and a 30 MPH avg. speed between stops with no stop/slow-and-protects, go for it without hesitation.
 
Last edited:
This is just a crazy childish fantasy but imagine a huge rollercoaster and a giant ferris wheel at the location wynn wants with a bowling alley/D&Bs :) I feel like that could have some pretty sweet veiws of the city and would be profitable

Hockey -- no-one can afford to develop that site for a Ferris Wheel and roller coaster

If you want to develop the site .. it has to be a MAJOR PROJECT to cover the ancillary costs .... just like the plan to build on the site of a big rail yard and the newly constructed Turnpike Extension in the 1950's demanded a project the scale of the Pru

To make anything out of the old Monsanto site you need to think of a BIG PROJECT such as a $1.5B Casino Hotel

The arguments about needing improved highway access are however real and need to be addressed no matter what the use of the site is going to be
 
BosDevelop, I suggest you try Connecticut Route 2 or 2A on an event night sometime. The casinos are losing gambling customers, but the events - which produce the nasty bursts of traffic - are still going strong. After a concert or game, most people head straight for their cars - except for the heavy gamblers with comped seats, most people attending events are not gamblers. You might only have 5,000 cars leaving an event - but those 5,000 cars are arriving as one massive pulse that equals or exceeds rush hour volumes for about 20 minutes.

When Mohegan Sun gets out, 2A is a zoo in both directions. The 95 end clears out after a bit, but the end terminating on 12 can back up for half an hour or more. Foxwoods causes the same problems on 2 - that expensive grade-separated bypass doesn't help a bit.

I used to live off Route 12 in Ledyard (one lane in each direction), with egress at an unsignalled intersection. At Mohegan Sun shift changes, or after a concert, it can easily take 5 minutes to turn left.

16/93, 16/28, 16/99, 16/1, 28/93, and Sullivan Square all look a lot to me like the potential to be what 2A/395, 2A/12, 2A/117, 2/117, 2/184, and 2/95 in Connecticut already are.

And this is the same deal as Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods pulled in Connecticut: no offers to build and maintain any real solutions to the traffic. I haven't heard Wynn talking about how he's going to fund improvements to 16, or connect his casino to the planned Chelsea busway, or pay for Eastern Route shuttle service. Back in Connecticut, Ledyard's Public Works gets whalloped with the bills to keep the roads usable - the state funding doesn't come close. Rumor has it that Mohegan Sun turned down the New England Central's overtures of a very fair deal on a rail shuttle to New London; they're just fine with the buses, never mind their safety record.

If Wynn wants to be allowed to build any sort of development, to hell with whether it's a casino, an arena, or the world's grandest petting zoo, he should be ponying up the money to leave traffic and transit better than he found it.

EGE ... How about 18,000 or so Hockey or Basketball fans coming / leaving the TD Garden ... most of them don't take the Green Line ... nor do they live in walking distance ... they park and drive .. pretty much on the same roads that they would use from Wynn's Casino
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...peal-effort/yFqCIB2E1TLj1VE44fcTFO/story.html

Several casino operators competing for gambling licenses in Massachusetts are preparing to file a motion with the state’s highest court, seeking to keep a proposed repeal of the state casino law off the November ballot.

The coalition of gambling companies, which also includes Massachusetts voters who want to protect the casino law, is expected to intervene as early as Monday in a lawsuit already pending before the Supreme Judicial Court, according to people with direct knowledge of the coalition’s plans but who are not authorized to speak publicly about it.

If the casino backers prevail in court, they could quash the repeal effort without a statewide vote and a potentially expensive referendum campaign.

The legal motion expected this week by casino backers reflects a growing concern that the casino operators who are selected to build the state’s first casinos will be soon asked to pay massive — and nonrefundable — licensing fees, even though the threat of casino law repeal still hangs over their pricey projects.


“It would be a gamble” for the companies to pay the fee, said Carl Jenkins, managing director at the financial firm Duff & Phelps, who has studied the local casino market.

The state would also be taking a risk by accepting the nonrefundable fees while the repeal question is unresolved, said Jenkins. “If the law was repealed, I’d wager there would be a significant number of lawsuits against the state,” he said.

One of the companies participating in the coalition against the repeal, MGM Resorts, said that over the past two years the company has invested millions of dollars and enormous staff time into its plans for an $800 million casino and entertainment complex in downtown Springfield. About 58 percent of Springfield voters backed the plan in a referendum last July.

“Our plan was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of voters,” Michael Mathis, vice president of global gaming development, said in a statement. “It would be devastating to roll back all that has been accomplished and take away the promise of what is to come.”

Massachusetts legalized casino gambling in November 2011, establishing a five-member state gambling commission to license as many as three resort casinos and one slot parlor.

Casino opponents, who argue that state voters never had a chance to directly weigh in on whether to open Massachusetts to the gambling industry, responded with a signature drive to put a repeal of the casino law on the November ballot.

“This wasn’t passed by the will of the people,” said John Ribeiro, chairman of the repeal effort, in an interview. “This was the will of a few people on Beacon Hill.”

Last year, Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts dealt the repeal effort a setback, ruling that the petition was unconstitutional and could not appear on the ballot.

Coakley’s office concluded the repeal would “impair the implied contracts between the commission and gaming license applicants,” and illegally “take” those contract rights without compensation, according to the decision issued Sept. 4.

Opponents appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, winning the right to collect signatures while the appeal was pending. They collected more than the minimum 68,911 valid signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot.

The case is expected to be argued in court in May, and decided by late June or early July. If the casino opponents win the case, voters would decide the repeal question in November, extending a cloud of uncertainty over the state’s casino industry for most of this year.

In the meantime, the gambling commission expects to award its first licenses. The panel may choose the winning applicant for the slot parlor license by March, and then issue licenses for resort casinos in Western Massachusetts and in Greater Boston by May. The resort casino license created for Southeastern Massachusetts is on a later timetable.

The licensing fee for the slot parlor is $25 million; the resort casino fee is $85 million. By law, the winning bidders are supposed to pay within 30 days.

In their attempt to intervene in the case, the gambling companies will support Coakley’s argument that the repeal would amount to an illegal taking of contract rights, as well as raise the argument that the petition was improperly drafted because it includes an issue unrelated to casinos: an apparent ban on parimutuel wagering on simulcast greyhound races, according to people familiar with the motion.

Stephen Crosby, chairman of the gambling commission, said some applicants have raised concerns over the repeal effort in documents submitted with their applications.

Nothing in the casino law gives the commission the power to return the licensing fees to the applicants if the casino law is repealed, Crosby said. In addition to licensing fees, winning bidders will face other costs, such as commitments to pay millions of dollars to their host communities, as well as land option payments, he said.

The Rev. Richard McGowan, a Boston College professor and casino expert, said he doubts any winning bidders would walk away from the license over the possibility of a repeal.

Based on “every single poll I’ve ever seen, I cannot imagine the state would vote for a repeal,” he said.

Polling performed last November by the Western New England University Polling Institute suggested that 61 percent of Massachusetts adults support the establishment of casinos in the state, and just 33 percent oppose it, which was similar to the results of polls in 2009 and 2010. Support plummeted when the projects got too close to home: just 42 percent said they would support a casino in their own community, while 55 percent were opposed, according to the survey.

Officials at Penn National Gaming, one of three applicants for the slot license, take comfort from the industry’s strong polling numbers.

“We’ve seen these types of [repeal] challenges before and they’ve never been successful,” said Eric Schippers, a Penn senior vice president. If Penn wins the slot license, the company will pay the $25 million fee even if the repeal is undecided, he said.

Ribeiro, the casino opponent, hopes the issue will discourage casino firms from building in Massachusetts. “The opposition is not going away,” he said. “If I were [a gambling company] considering investing in coming to this state, I’d think twice.”
 
This is just a crazy childish fantasy but imagine a huge rollercoaster and a giant ferris wheel at the location wynn wants with a bowling alley/D&Bs :) I feel like that could have some pretty sweet veiws of the city and would be profitable

Yeah, I'm imagining that - closed six months out of the year due to unfavorable weather conditions (see also: every outdoor theme park / thrill ride in New England pointedly including Six Flags New England on the other side of the state, going in on a sweetheart deal with MGM last I checked so you might get your roller coaster anyway on the basis of 'anything you can do' style competition from Wynn) - but commenting on that is not why I'm back here posting in this thread again.

I'm ecstatic to see that, terrified of the inevitable outcome of allowing casino repeal to come to a vote, casino operators-hopeful are throwing in behind a last-ditch effort to quash the will of the people once and for all. My personal favorite part of the Globe article is the hilarious degree of doublethink required for casino supporters to claim "this is a lock, why even bother - the repeal has no chance of passing" and then, in practically the same breath, commit themselves to the legal fight to make sure that the repeal can't go to a vote.

None of my objections to casino development in Metro Boston have changed. They're very much still an unprecedented disaster for the region no matter where they go in because a "resort-style" casino's business model is entirely tied into getting people in the doors and keeping them there as long as possible. They are not meant to integrate into the urban fabric because it is a direct loss of money for their restaurants/hotels/attractions/entertainment every single time someone walks out of Wynn's front doors and goes anywhere else in the city for anything that is offered within 'the resort.' At best, you're replacing blighted or dead regions of the urban fabric with a Casino District, at worst, you're trading one urban blight for another.

I've always argued that the appropriate places for a casino resort are all places like the outskirts of Palmer, Northbridge, Leominster, Marion... close enough to be connected by roads or rail to the metro region (be that metro Springfield, metro Worcester, or metro Boston), but far enough way to be isolated and buffered from the urban environment; that way, the barriers are already in place and the casino doesn't (and mustn't) take further steps to cut itself off in the manner of 'easy to enter, tough to leave' design decisions that so often inform every part of the casino construction process from top to bottom and back to front.

The decision to construct an urban casino should be treated, frankly, the same way as the decision to clear out an entire neighborhood might be. There's functionally no difference in my mind between "I think Springfield deserves better, but let's build a casino here" and "I think Springfield deserves better, but let's condemn and demolish several city blocks." The latter is a consequence of the former, and the former is very much likely to generate situations that ultimately result in the latter.
 
F-Line, do you work for the MBTA, Amtrak, or a rail freight company? Quite an impressive knowledge of the rail system.
 
EGE ... How about 18,000 or so Hockey or Basketball fans coming / leaving the TD Garden ... most of them don't take the Green Line ... nor do they live in walking distance ... they park and drive .. pretty much on the same roads that they would use from Wynn's Casino

TD Garden is just about... no, it is actually the worst comparison you could have possibly come up with.
 
F-Line, do you work for the MBTA, Amtrak, or a rail freight company? Quite an impressive knowledge of the rail system.

Nope. I'm actually in the publishing industry. No insider transit connections whatsoever beyond the occasional PM'd tip or answer on RR.net from an employee. Just have a compulsive, voracious appetite for accumulating transit info by osmosis and brainstorming on the infrastructure side of urban planning. Can't help it; it's more a vice than a hobby or career interest. And I work from home these days so nobody's looking over my shoulder when half-of-brain is in multitasking mode chewing obsessively on this stuff.
 

Back
Top