Boston becoming like San Francisco? (Worcester, Springfield: insurance, how much, hotel)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by massnative71

You mean early 2000s??? I believe that's when it peaked, right around the same time PVD did with the whole Southwest expansion.

Yep, my mistake. 4,329,578 in 2005 and a rather precipitous drop in the decade and a half following landing at 1,727,532 in 2019. Even when peaking I'm not sure that MHT or PVD was at or approaching capacity either.

[id77]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

It would absolutely allow for taller buildings downtown, which is how we got on the subject in the first place. It would also allow housing to be built in that half of Eastie.

The theory here was that adding a massive amount of housing would lower housing costs and an assumption was that dense housing would be easier to add to Boston than to Carlisle. Now, I’m still skeptical that increasing inventory would really solve all our problems, but that’s another issue. At the very least, we’d still probably have a problem with homelessness and drug abuse at Mass & Cass because the people there have bigger problems to deal with generally than whether an apartment in Medford goes for $2200 vs $1500.

Besides housing, a bigger airport not in East Boston would allow for more runways, longer runways, more storage space for planes, and easier access from the suburbs. Could make Boston more of an air travel hub than it is now, but that’s sort of besides the point for this thread.



They might not have a choice if Logan starts flooding during high tide.

As for the smaller airports, I’m sitting in MHT as I type this, and I’m not convinced they have a lot of room for expansion. The airport is hemmed in by office parks on practically all sides. I don’t think it’ll ever be a good enough pressure relief for Logan. Maybe TF Green could. Worcester’s is tiny, no? I’ve never even looked into flights there.

The airport is not the only reason there aren't more tall buildings downtown. If the argument is that it's land for more buildings near downtown, then the question I'd ask is if that was the only factor in play why haven't neighborhoods like Dorchester built up? That is, why is the particular parcel of land where an airport (itself very, very expensive to move) the only parcel where new builds can go?

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

A little more than that, but not much. Goddard drive up to the front door is 2.5 miles at average 2.8%. Trains want to stay at 1.5% or less, so the station would have to be about 175' below the airport .

Would that be a problem if you are using a tunneling machine? I don't know I am just asking.

You could just also move the entrance somewhere else and use escalators to bridge the gap to the gates.
I mean, if the alternative is a new airport...

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Lampert

Would that be a problem if you are using a tunneling machine? I don't know I am just asking.

You could just also move the entrance somewhere else and use escalators to bridge the gap to the gates.
I mean, if the alternative is a new airport...

We can’t get a tunnel to connect North Station and South Station. You want a 2+ mile tunnel to Worcester Airport?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

We can’t get a tunnel to connect North Station and South Station. You want a 2+ mile tunnel to Worcester Airport?

I get what you're saying because obviously a tunnel to ORH is not on anyone's list of priorities, but the North/South Station link is a logistical nightmare. It's such a short distance and there are so many obstacles (utility infrastructure), subway tunnels, highway tunnels, highway ramps, etc.) that getting the rail tunnel deep enough to avoid those obstacles while enabling trains to get up the slope with stops at North & South stations (and potentially a "Central" station at Aquarium) is an engineering challenge for the ages.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I get what you're saying because obviously a tunnel to ORH is not on anyone's list of priorities, but the North/South Station link is a logistical nightmare. It's such a short distance and there are so many obstacles (utility infrastructure), subway tunnels, highway tunnels, highway ramps, etc.) that getting the rail tunnel deep enough to avoid those obstacles while enabling trains to get up the slope with stops at North & South stations (and potentially a "Central" station at Aquarium) is an engineering challenge for the ages.

Yeah

Originally Posted by GeoffD

We can’t get a tunnel to connect North Station and South Station. You want a 2+ mile tunnel to Worcester Airport?

I don't want a 2 miles tunnel built now (btw, the tunnel doesn't need to be 2 miles). If Logan becomes unusable due to climate change, or simply saturated for other reasons a better connection to Boston from ORH would be by far the easier and cheaper option for relief. Even including a 2 miles tunnel, that's kind of most of what you need to do.
I know PVD already has a train station but 1) you need to deal with another state and 2) ORH is basically empty 3) Massport owns both BOS and ORH.

[id77]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I get what you're saying because obviously a tunnel to ORH is not on anyone's list of priorities, but the North/South Station link is a logistical nightmare. It's such a short distance and there are so many obstacles (utility infrastructure), subway tunnels, highway tunnels, highway ramps, etc.) that getting the rail tunnel deep enough to avoid those obstacles while enabling trains to get up the slope with stops at North & South stations (and potentially a "Central" station at Aquarium) is an engineering challenge for the ages.

I'm honestly a little surprised Elon Musk hasn't tweeted about some grandiose plan to solve this problem yet. Seems like exactly the sort of thing he gets excited about.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I get what you're saying because obviously a tunnel to ORH is not on anyone's list of priorities, but the North/South Station link is a logistical nightmare. It's such a short distance and there are so many obstacles (utility infrastructure), subway tunnels, highway tunnels, highway ramps, etc.) that getting the rail tunnel deep enough to avoid those obstacles while enabling trains to get up the slope with stops at North & South stations (and potentially a "Central" station at Aquarium) is an engineering challenge for the ages.

So we use the magical Elon Musk Boring Company tunnel machine and go underneath all of it. Shuttle passengers 4 at a time in Teslas. Or get the Horta from the original styrofoam rock Star Trek episode to dig it. “Damnit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a bricklayer”. I prefer the Horta solution.

But yeah, with 2021 technology, it would be a massive expense to fix Boston’s rail and subway tunnel problem.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Not defeatist, realistic. We are so far behind most of western Europe in most every important (to non rich people) quality of life improving criteria, it isn't funny. It's part of our "woo woo 'Merica" and "just say no to "socialism"" religion.

I would honestly say that NIMBYism is the biggest obstacle to solving the infrastructure problems facing Massachusetts. Other parts of the country do get infrastructure improvement projects approved and completed, they just don't follow the European model. Massachusetts and also Connecticut could be considered the NIMBY capitals of the world.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

As for the smaller airports, I’m sitting in MHT as I type this, and I’m not convinced they have a lot of room for expansion. The airport is hemmed in by office parks on practically all sides. I don’t think it’ll ever be a good enough pressure relief for Logan. Maybe TF Green could. Worcester’s is tiny, no? I’ve never even looked into flights there.

Originally Posted by massnative71

MHT could accommodate a lot more traffic in its current form, at its peak it saw around 4 million PAX while it's currently under 2 million I believe. PVD is similarly underutilized.

I would think that office parks are easier to relocate than residential neighborhoods. This would make it less cumbersome for MHT to physically expand it's footprint compared to a facility like Hanscom.