While there is plenty of "mapmaker OCD" to go around, this is not it. Having this connection - theoretically - would be absolutely huge, because connectivity into Chelsea and basically from Boston proper/Cambridge/Charlestown into East Boston/Chelsea/Everett is extremely limited by bike at the present. It's a major problem.
Except...YOU CAN'T HAVE THE CONNECTION. It's impossible to string it together without punitive eminent domain that no one will allow. Therefore, you either throw good money at useless disconnected pathlets or spend your money on some other pedestrian project that actually nets something useful.
I'm sorry...there is no "theoretical" connectivity here. It can't be done. All the "yeah, but's. . ." in the world do not make the physically impossible turn "theoretical". It's a devastatingly simple question: do you want to blow your wad on good government projects, or bad? This isn't an exercise in mental gymnastics for imagining an alternate universe where bad is not-bad.
Now, I don't support connecting any dots on maps, even useful ones, for unlimited costs. I dont know the details of what it would take, either - you talk as if you do, although I'm not so sure in this case, so a couple points:
- I'm not in favor of acquiring easements over small land holdings, but on at least one side of these tracks, from Market Basket to 99/16, there are huge land holdings/parking lots/warehouses.
Yes. Exactly. Prohibitively large number of private property acquisitions to net enough contiguous path. This is exactly what I meant about throwing good money after bad.
Their private property rights are, I guess, equally important to those of the folks in the triple deckers, but it logistically far less of an imposition and if you ask me - not even a very socialistically minded individual - those are the properties where getting a little thin strip of land usage for an easement of passage is not such a big deal and sooner or later we're going to have to do this, since there isnt any open space left.
Stop right there. This assumption of innate altruism has no basis in reality. Residential abutters with small backyards are not going to be willing to give up what little personal space they have. Yards are hard to come by; have a house with one, and you're going to be loathe to see it chopped down. They are not going be swayed by "Well, we haven't got any open space left...so fork it over." That's Urban Renewal planner ivory tower mentality...the exact kind of government assault on property rights that led to the most infamous of highway revolts. Reappropriating that mentality to greener transportation like a footpath does not change the hostility of the action to these abutters. It is the same as "We need your backyard for a highway we're building because reasons". Property rights are important enough that "We need your backyard for a footpath we're building because reasons" provokes exactly the same hostility. There are decades of history repeating itself to back that up. There is nothing backing up altruism to fork it over for a "friendly" path other than intensity of one person's personal belief.
You will never acquire this residential property without eminent domain, surrendering a chunk of flesh in lawsuits, and a boondoggle of an overpay. That kind of tactical nuclear strike is a proven loser, and makes for bad policy.
United Rentals and Matucchio Metals aren't going to be there forever.
How do you know that? Matucchio has been in business for 60 years at that site, and are a locally-owned mom-and-pop. What evidence is there that they're hot to take a wad of "Go away!" money?
It would be better to think about this NOW, not in 20 years when the
whole area is being developed (maybe not residential, but someday the space north of the tracks will be denser to at least some degree than it is now).
No, you should not. Acting on a fragmented, non-useful transit project for the sake of "NOW" is terrible government policy. Your supposition that this thing can eventually be stitched together into something useful relies on nothing but wishful thinking that someday the land will be available because someday people's altruism will get the better of them. There is zero, nada empirical evidence backing up any of those suppositions...let alone ALL of those suppositions which must prove true in tandem to ever have the chance of stitching together a useful path. And you want to start shoveling money at it now?
No...that's terrible public policy. Real-world project evaluation declares that a nonstarter in a nanosecond. You can believe what you want to as intensely as you want to, but it's not rooted in the real world.
- Using the government flexibly, to encourage allowances for things like this, is not a bad thing on its face. "Public private partnership" is more than whitewash.
Where is the "partnership" in this public-private partnership? Altruism...you are assuming property owner altruism as the primary means of delivering the goods. There is no evidence throughout modern history that private abutters--much less that many of them--will ALL buy that argument. This is wishful thinking.
- I disagree that a slight convolution of a trail through downtown Chelsea would disrupt passage if there were an otherwise straight path.
You have to go multiple blocks out of the way to get back on-target at that one break where physical width does not exist. That's more than a "slight" convolution. Then start piling on all the other detours from the other blocks where property is not available. Wayfinding gets completely shredded between all these non-contiguous pathlets. There's no so-called route to follow when the quantity of detours starts to resemble a
Family Circus strip.
- the LNG terminal is obviously not going anywhere, either, but the undeveloped land around here is also not expanding. If there is any long range potential for a ROW through here, it should be considered now, not in 30 years.
This is factually false. Everett Terminal has signed on new customers within the last 18 months, and business is up on the Chelsea River docks. Future Massport dredging of the Harbor and Chelsea River are supposed to substantially increase the prospects of the port facilities all up and down the river. Privately-owned Everett Terminal does not have a site master plan in place yet since the port upgrades are many years away, but they will be required to submit one if they want to latch onto the public funding for the Chelsea River deepwater projects. The slack space onsite will be crammed full of more deepwater port-related facilities in the future. It is that important to the public-private strategy for the state's ports.
There will be no ROW through here. There is nothing to consider...not now, and definitely not in 30 years when all that deepwater port land is filled out.
