The Benjamin & VIA (née One Seaport Square) | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

CSTH is the winner! But lets not rewrite history. the big dig was never intended to eliminate rush hour traffic. Without it, we would have been in rush hour conditions 16 hours a day at this point.

and yes, BW Rd doesnt connect to Summer. But Dot ave connects to Congress. and congress has Sleeper or BW Rd to connect to the north.
Nobody would go to atlantic. even without traffic, its longer and out of the way. add in the travel times getting past S station and its as asinine as the rest of the arguments that have attempted.

Lets not forget, even if somebody wanted to go this route to Atlantic, there is already a connection, its called the Moakley Bridge. So the idea this route isnt already possible is wrong to begin with.

now stop talking about traffic already.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

BKNA said:
CSTH is the winner! But lets not rewrite history. the big dig was never intended to eliminate rush hour traffic. Without it, we would have been in rush hour conditions 16 hours a day at this point.

and yes, BW Rd doesnt connect to Summer. But Dot ave connects to Congress. and congress has Sleeper or BW Rd to connect to the north.
Nobody would go to atlantic. even without traffic, its longer and out of the way. add in the travel times getting past S station and its as asinine as the rest of the arguments that have attempted.

Lets not forget, even if somebody wanted to go this route to Atlantic, there is already a connection, its called the Moakley Bridge. So the idea this route isnt already possible is wrong to begin with.

now stop talking about traffic already.
Click to expand...

BKNA -- Automobile, Bike, Pedestrian Traffic and Transit collectively is an issue for the Seaport/Innovation/GE-keiretsu District.

Way beyond the rush hour capacity of ramps to I-93, it will be a continuing discussion as the district continues to develop over the next few decades -- the District is Boston's Canary Wharf
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

JANAM said:
Neither Boston Wharf Rd or B St. connect to Summer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are correct, I was thinking about going straight ahead on Dorchester to Congress, and then taking that route.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Newsflash Whighlander the Seaport District is in the middle of the city/ is an extension of downtown why are you so worried about traffic being bad there? You know what other streets back up every day at rush hour... Mass Ave, Boylston, Stuart St., Brookline Ave, etc. and you never seem to worry that traffic in those neighborhoods will drive away business but in the seaport god forbid there is traffic that will just kill the neighborhood.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

citylover94 said:
Newsflash Whighlander the Seaport District is in the middle of the city/ is an extension of downtown why are you so worried about traffic being bad there? You know what other streets back up every day at rush hour... Mass Ave, Boylston, Stuart St., Brookline Ave, etc. and you never seem to worry that traffic in those neighborhoods will drive away business but in the seaport god forbid there is traffic that will just kill the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Citylover -- it's too late to do much about the traffic in the Back Bay or Financial District

Its not too late to make some improvements in the SPIGK District. In particular, it is clear that where intensive development over the next 20 years extend will far exceed the boundary of what was expected even 5 years ago by planners.

That is why tunneling under D for the Silver Line and encouraging major development on Air Rights over an Underground Silver Line Way T Terminal should be the DoT's / T's / BPDA's Number One priority
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Traffic can't be solved by more road capacity though. Ever heard of induced demand? And if traffic hasn't killed those other locations why worry about it here?
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

The biggest issue with the seaport is that it has poor public transportation and poor road access compared to Downtown/Back Bay. If a place is hard to get to, like lynn for example, it will never be as desirable.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

citylover94 said:
Traffic can't be solved by more road capacity though. Ever heard of induced demand? And if traffic hasn't killed those other locations why worry about it here?
Click to expand...

Citylover -- 'Induced Demand" is a totally bogus concept when it comes to commuter traffic.

Unless you are talking about the fringe of the driving distribution where people will joy-ride on a new piece of highway -- the only reason anyone would drive in a city during rush-period [3hr+/-] is to get to somewhere for a serious reason.

As such you can perhaps defer some trips by making it too onerous for a particular time period [e.g. elective medical care] or reschedule some routine trips by means such as staggered work hours. And of course there are mode substitutions which can be made such a banking on-line, or carpooling, taking the T, biking, walking, etc.

However, for the majority of the commuters driving each working day into Boston -- the only solution to traffic jams -- aka Network Congestion -- is increased effeciency / throughput of the network and that means more links and improved capacity of the links.

Note that this Network theory and practice and it applies to telecom links, water pipes and roads equally well.

In someplace fully built-up / out such as the Back Bay there are few opportunities for dramatic solutions. All that is left is tinkering with the timing of signals and possibly trying some reversible lanes. Longer-term, if trends persist -- there may be a larger fraction of people living in "Mixed buildings" where work and living can co-exist so that more of the commute can be on foot.

However, in the evolving Seaport / Innovation / GE-Keiretsu District [the "SPIG-KD"] there is still plenty of rewiring, and indeed wiring from scratch that can be done to make the network more efficient.

The major problem in the SPIG-KD is that it has succeeded well beyond the widest expectations of the people who thought they could predict its growth a few decades ago when the Big Dig and Silver Line were being planned. These planners saw the Court House, the area around the Commonwealth & Fish Piers, the BCEC, as the nuclei of a slowly growing region with an area by the Fort Point Channel populated by artists and some low density other developments.

No planner could foresee the B$ molecule that catapulted backwater bio-pharma company -- Vertex from a rabbit's warren of buildings in Kendal into one of the largest private development projects in the entire country. Vertex, taking two large buildings on the water ratified the district as good place for more traditional companies such as Financial District types: Accounting / Business Consulting and Legal Firms. Thereby launching the SPI portion of the district. The SPI is now developing along the axis of the Seaport Blvd into a high density mixed district of residences and offices.

No planner even 3 years ago could imagine GE moving to the edge of the Channel hard by Gillette. The outcome of this move will be more and more expansion of the GE part of the district back toward Dorchester Ave and further down Summer St.

We are already seeing another micronucleus forming in vicinity of the other Channel as the Cruise Business has boomed and the old Army and Navy buildings are getting repurposed into high and higher tech by the likes of Autodesk.

This is the time to think about how the road and other transportation network can be made better -- not just to move people in/out of the area but also to provide a much better way to move around within the area but beyond typical convenient walking range.

For example suppose Tomorrow at 10 AM you wanted to walk from 651 Pappas Way to 19 Bond Drive. -- walking would take 30 minutes; taking the T would take 30 minutes; driving would take 10 minutes with two crossings of the Fort Point Channel; bicycling would take 10 or 11 min and cover nearly 2 miles. The most direct distance is a bit over 1 mile -- We can do better.

Unfortunately, one of the major challenges is how to cross the Pike - -the Silver Line which can avoid surface traffic is stuck along Seaport Blvd boxed in by the trench for the Pike. All the other T options can get stuck in surface traffic.

Maybe its time to break out the Tunnel Boring Machine and start a subway for the SPIGKD ;)
The following is all from CrossRail Ltd.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/
in London and surrounds where in the core of the city a new line connecting at existing Tube Stations by escalators and extending out on through Canary Wharf /Dockyards and in the other direction to Heathrow where new stations as well as new track is being installed.

Some of it was quite literally threading through "the eye of a needle" as the 1000 tonn TBM passed about 1m above the roof of the existing Tube platform at Tottenham Court and was even closer when it went under one the escalator banks -- see the recent Nova program @ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/super-tunnel.html or more from CrossRail @
https://youtu.be/doaIk70wlVY
track-installation-carousel-images.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

whighlander said:
Citylover -- 'Induced Demand" is a totally bogus concept when it comes to commuter traffic.

Unless you are talking about the fringe of the driving distribution where people will joy-ride on a new piece of highway -- the only reason anyone would drive in a city during rush-period [3hr+/-] is to get to somewhere for a serious reason.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed by how drastically you've missed the point.

If the big dig never happened, no one would be building big new office buildings on the east side of the fort point channel.

Induced demand is not about whether I decide to go to work this morning. It's about (a) whether I decide to drive or take the train and (b) whether my employer has decided to ask me to drive to Southie or to, say, Andover.

Also, FWIW, Vertex didn't move to the Seaport because they developed a molecule. They moved there because they could build a shit load of sqft with a huge floor plate, and because they got a huge fucking tax break to take their talents across the river from their former home in Cambridge.

And the 'network' isn't about moving cars (and trucks) around. It's about moving people (and trucks) around. Cars don't scale. Transit does.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

CSTH said:
I'm amazed by how drastically you've missed the point.

If the big dig never happened, no one would be building big new office buildings on the east side of the fort point channel.

Induced demand is not about whether I decide to go to work this morning. It's about (a) whether I decide to drive or take the train and (b) whether my employer has decided to ask me to drive to Southie or to, say, Andover.

Also, FWIW, Vertex didn't move to the Seaport because they developed a molecule. They moved there because they could build a shit load of sqft with a huge floor plate, and because they got a huge fucking tax break to take their talents across the river from their former home in Cambridge.

And the 'network' isn't about moving cars (and trucks) around. It's about moving people (and trucks) around. Cars don't scale. Transit does.
Click to expand...

a propos of nothing, this guy... i like this guy ^^^
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

citylover94 said:
Traffic can't be solved by more road capacity though. Ever heard of induced demand? And if traffic hasn't killed those other locations why worry about it here?
Click to expand...

But the point that so many people miss about so-called "induced demand" (it's really just "demand", nothing special or unique about it) is that it is welfare increasing. Even if everybody using the new roads sits in traffic for just as long as they did on the old roads, there is still more overall public good when more people are able to experience the benefit of the roads. Basically, 100 people taking an hour to drive to work is better than 90 people taking an hour to drive to work. The fact that the trip remains to take an hour does not change this.

whighlander said:
Citylover -- 'Induced Demand" is a totally bogus concept when it comes to commuter traffic.

Unless you are talking about the fringe of the driving distribution where people will joy-ride on a new piece of highway -- the only reason anyone would drive in a city during rush-period [3hr+/-] is to get to somewhere for a serious reason.
Click to expand...

whighlander is making the case here that demand for roads is (close to perfectly) inelastic. Society will consume quantity=x road trips, and the price of these trips (i.e., the time spent in traffic) will not affect this quantity consumed. Thus, as road capacity expands, the price (time spent in traffic) of trips will drop while the quantity of trips will not increase accordingly.

Proponents of "induced demand" make the case that demand for roads is (close to perfectly) elastic. Society is willing to spend price=t (time spent in traffic) on their trips, and this willingness to pay will not change as quantity of trips changes. Thus, an increase in road capacity will "induce" more people to take trips up until the point at which price (time spent in traffic) returns to t.

I don't think there is anything in life for which people have perfectly elastic or perfectly inelastic demand. But my understanding of the literature is that demand for driving in cities is, at the current point of equilibrium, fairly elastic. Drivers are price (time) sensitive, so an increase in road capacity will lead to more people taking to the roads and time spent in traffic will remain largely (but not 100%) unchanged.

But again, an increase in quantity even without a decrease in price is still welfare increasing.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

CSTH said:
I'm amazed by how drastically you've missed the point.

If the big dig never happened, no one would be building big new office buildings on the east side of the fort point channel.

Induced demand is not about whether I decide to go to work this morning. It's about (a) whether I decide to drive or take the train and (b) whether my employer has decided to ask me to drive to Southie or to, say, Andover.

Also, FWIW, Vertex didn't move to the Seaport because they developed a molecule. They moved there because they could build a shit load of sqft with a huge floor plate, and because they got a huge fucking tax break to take their talents across the river from their former home in Cambridge.

And the 'network' isn't about moving cars (and trucks) around. It's about moving people (and trucks) around. Cars don't scale. Transit does.
Click to expand...

CSTH -- Yes the Ted William Tunnel was a catalyst for growth accelerating in the District when it first opened to Commercial traffic [1995]

But before the Ted was even a construction project Fidelity's Real Estate Arm was redoing Commonwealth Pier into the Seaport world Trade Center [1986] after an abortive attempt to convert the mostly derelict pier into BOSCOM [a high tech trade center] in 1983-1984.

Vertex however, provided the first big opportunity -- in 2012 FDA grants approval for a Vertex drug to treat Cystic Fibrosis --at time its 1200 Boston-area employees were scattered around East Cambridge. By the beginning of 2014 -- Vertex was sitting proudly at the edge of the Fan Pier Development after nearly $1B was spent on two custom buildings. Note that they could just as easily, quicker and cheaper moved to say Andover or Marlborough and built even bigger floor plates -- but they took the $ and bought big-time visibility as a high value, high flying NASDAQ company.

I'm not sure i know what you mean by
And the 'network' isn't about moving cars (and trucks) around. It's about moving people (and trucks) around. Cars don't scale. Transit does.
Click to expand...
.

It most certainly is about moving people and goods around -- in most places including Boston -- today that is by roads. Unless things are really compact such as NYC 7th Ave. Garment District -- you need trucks and trucks need roads. Similarly, unless you have a complete grid of train tracks such as London [and even in London] you need roads for cars. The cars may end-up being self driving, and very small, and lots of them may be Ubers, but you still need roads.

And of course the capacity of roads scales -- you just make the roads wider, or travel speed in each lane faster, or more densely packed [such as self driving]. Note also that you can not escape the rules that govern network behavior just because you put it underground and on steel rails. The exact same scaling applies to a given number of rail tracks and the speed, spacing and capacity of the vehicles running on them.

Which get's back to my point the overall network of roads needs to be made as efficient as possible -- irrespective of how many tunnels you may succeed in digging
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Bringing this back to the actual development, I glad they didn't VE the slightly more interesting design on parcel C. The orange stripe and white boxes are going to add color! This will help reduce the image of Seaport being a sea of glass boxes
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

JumboBuc said:
But the point that so many people miss about so-called "induced demand" (it's really just "demand", nothing special or unique about it) is that it is welfare increasing. Even if everybody using the new roads sits in traffic for just as long as they did on the old roads, there is still more overall public good when more people are able to experience the benefit of the roads. Basically, 100 people taking an hour to drive to work is better than 90 people taking an hour to drive to work. The fact that the trip remains to take an hour does not change this.
Click to expand...
Id agree with this point (except it would be even better if 50 people were driving and 50 people were taking mass transit, but....)
However, the point you miss is that there is a roadway hierarchy and classification. Creating additional capacity on a city street, will only entice people to avoid the highway. So it doesnt increase the overall vehicle demand in the city, but it does increase the vehicles on the city streets. People avoiding the highway or not being able to access the highway is what causes the congestion in the seaport (and just about every other neighborhood in Boston).

JumboBuc said:
my understanding of the literature is that demand for driving in cities is, at the current point of equilibrium, fairly elastic. Drivers are price (time) sensitive, so an increase in road capacity will lead to more people taking to the roads and time spent in traffic will remain largely (but not 100%) unchanged.
Click to expand...
this is also correct, but youre missing the point of why this is a negative. If we increase roadway capacity (whether highway or local road), more people will drive. youve just created additional demand that didnt exist before, which is the definition of induced. the demand is brought on by the increased in capacity.
we shouldnt be encouraging more people to drive single occupant vehicles because its a fight we cant win because we cant create enough capacity to satisfy (whether its on highways or on local streets). Just look at our midwest cities. highways that 20+ lanes wide have traffic during the peak hours. city streets that are 6 and 8 lanes wide still have traffic. and when you create SOV capacity the urban fabric is gone. the streets in these cities are less walkable than Rt 9 in Natick and Framingham. You end up with motorists driving through a neighborhood instead of people actually in the neighborhood enjoying it.


why Im still responding to silliness like these comments below is beyond me, but in case a person out there actually wants to know reality:
whighlander said:
In particular, it is clear that where intensive development over the next 20 years extend will far exceed the boundary of what was expected even 5 years ago by planners.

is now developing along the axis of the Seaport Blvd into a high density mixed district of residences and offices.

No planner even 3 years ago could imagine GE moving to the edge of the Channel hard by Gillette. The outcome of this move will be more and more expansion of the GE part of the district back toward Dorchester Ave and further down Summer St.
Click to expand...
all 3 of these 'statements' are wrong.
Seaport Blvd (and the entire area) has always been planned as mixed use. since the days McCourt was trying to move the Sox over there, the rest of the neighborhood was going to be mixed use.

GE being the tenant might not have been known, but redevelopment of these parcels has always been assumed/planned.

the development that is currently happening in the seaport has been known for years, decades even. Its been planned for since before they constructed the ramps from I-90 into seaport. You think those ramps (and the additional money it cost) were put in to support the mud lots?
the idea that all of this development is coming out of nowhere, unexpected is entirely false. In fact the development is behind schedule by about 10 years. Its been known and planned for since the beginning (the big dig being the beginning of time of course).

the local streets can accommodate the traffic generated by these developments. it was planned for it. can some of the planning and design be tweaked? sure. but it wont make a material difference. what the streets cant do is accommodate the local uses and regional traffic cutting through the area or regional traffic that cant access the highway on ramps. This is true in established neighborhoods as well as developing ones.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

BKNA said:
However, the point you miss is that there is a roadway hierarchy and classification. Creating additional capacity on a city street, will only entice people to avoid the highway. So it doesnt increase the overall vehicle demand in the city, but it does increase the vehicles on the city streets. People avoiding the highway or not being able to access the highway is what causes the congestion in the seaport (and just about every other neighborhood in Boston).
Click to expand...

The population that drives through the Seaport and the population that drives straight through on 93 are very different. And even if people did take to city streets in lieu of the highway, this would decrease volume on the highway, decrease traffic, and open up space for others to take their place. This would still be welfare increasing.

BKNA said:
If we increase roadway capacity (whether highway or local road), more people will drive. youve just created additional demand that didnt exist before, which is the definition of induced. the demand is brought on by the increased in capacity.
Click to expand...

But you're not "creating additional demand that didn't exist before". That demand was always there. Demand exists on a continuum (a "demand schedule", commonly represented as a curve). Changing supply (and thus, price) does not create new demand, it just moves the demand-supply equilibrium along the existing demand curve. This is first semester economics stuff.

BKNA said:
and when you create SOV capacity the urban fabric is gone. the streets in these cities are less walkable than Rt 9 in Natick and Framingham. You end up with motorists driving through a neighborhood instead of people actually in the neighborhood enjoying it.
Click to expand...

What you're talking about here are the negative externalities that roads have on the overall urban environment, which are many. This is a completely separate issue from so-called "induced demand". Yes, overbuilding roads can make cities worse places to live, but this has no bearing on the micro effects that marginal increases in road capacity have on traffic volumes.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Beeline -- that's an intriguing viewpoint -- its rare that we get to see the Seaport Sq. area from the "back side" -- I'm guessing near the USPS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top