There are a couple of things bothering me about the Putnam Lane situation.
One, we’ve heard that there are 2,500-3,000 daily trips on Putnam Lane. However, this CSX deal is (supposedly) going to free up commuter rail availability. Now, the whole Framingham/Worcester line has 18,000 passengers daily. Granted, not all of those passengers are traveling to and from Worcester, but I would venture to say that there would be a positive impact to those 18,000 passengers if the CSX deal went through, and that there might even be more passengers if increased commuter rail service were a result of that deal.
So, why aren’t we hearing from those people? Are those commuters even aware that this discussion could impact them? Why is this just cast as a neighborhood issue, instead of as a city issue?
Two, $10-12 million (or, $15-20 million, if we have to buy buildings to accommodate a bridge) is a lot of money for a road that has less traffic than my (relatively dead-end) street. The FY2011 Budget for the DPW Streets Division is $2.25 million (see page 205-207 of the budget, numbered 245-247 in the pdf). There are also some road infrastructure improvements under debt services (p. 268 of the budget, numbered 308 in the .pdf) that amount to $8.025 million.
That means that the Putnam Lane replacement bridge project would cost as much as (and likely much more than) regular street work, plus the major street infrastructure projects in the city for the next year. Can you imagine how much the city could do to improve streets with that kind of money? Can you imagine where that money will come from?
Someone in the city government or in the real media needs to say, “Hey, this bridge is going to cost the equivalent of a decade’s worth of regular street maintenance, or two years’ worth of all the street work we do. Is it really worth it for the limited number of people this actually impacts?” Because, while taking away that road may impact a small number of people, it’s all of us who are going to have to pay for it.
I thought they were going to get CSX to pay for it?
If you read Jeremy’s article, it seems that no one at CSX would commit to that.
And, frankly, in their shoes, I wouldn’t, either. That’s a lot of money for a road that has limited traffic.
Nicole, I would like to add my two cents to the dreaded ”small potatoes” Putnam Lane discussion.
I too feel that spending anywhere from $10-20 million on that particular bridge would not only be crazy, but would disrupt life in those neighborhoods way beyond measure. I’m sure no one at CSX would commit or comment as they are holding their cards close to their chest on this one.
That being said, I believe it is the responsiblity of the city and CSX to consider the infrastructure currently in place before any agreements are made. Being very, very familiar with that area, I can tell you that removing 1/3 of the access to a vital thoroughfare without significant improvements in the road widths, lengths and traffic signals at the other 2/3 would be a huge mistake with the potential for major traffic nightmares.
I would politely disagree that closing this road impacts a limited number of people. The impact will be felt at Plantation/Aitchison/Shrewsbury Sts./Rt.9 as well as the Franklin St./Washington Square areas. The potential for backups and traffic jams is significant and resonates to UMass Medical as well as the Biotech areas. The roads (as they currently are configured) are not adequate to handle the extra traffic – especially the Plantation St. end.
as a daily traveler to Boston I don’t think the CSX expansion in Worcester will benefit me as a commuter–I am still in favor of it and dont like the idea of a per trailer mitigation fee either
If i continued with my series in ICT, I was going to talk about the need for Worcester to RETAIN the young ppl who make $80k or more right out of college.
But we all know why I had to–had to–stop.
You gotta think out of the box and think big on CSX.
Putnam Lane is very, very small potatoes in the big picture.
One way to do it is to look at the urban environment that existed for 3/4 of Worcester’s history. Before the automobile, all the streets like Grafton, Front, Central, Millbury connected EASILY.
A waterfront is not a crazy idea.
A garden jewel area would accentuate the downtwon area as a place to slow down, stop, spend, eat, etc.
I spoke about the need for the city to build urban centers from Middle River to Lincoln Sq/Gateway Park with pedestrian friendly, very green environments.
A CSX expansion should be combined with (and the City should take advantage of) whatever federal money is available for this economic expansion.
CSX expansion is about many things for Worcester. One thing will be the additon of RAPID train service to and from Boston to keep young ppl.
If someone wants to call me elitist or that a plan like the one I am proposing isn’t taking care of low income people, bring it on.
Downtown is already full of low income people. Worcester doesn’t know what a yuppie environment is, for Chrissakes. (I am talking to you GR and RT)
The poor you will always have with you
We need to FILL that urban zone, densely packed with pedestrian friendly young people.
One solution may be to go UP. To add single bedroom units that rent to folks making $80K or sell for $200K ea.
Worcester needs this CSX deal–badly. Thank you, Tim Murray, for getting at least this far.
Why don’t you start a blog?
Interesting ideas and concepts worth consideration.
I think you will see a significant increase in ‘pedestrian friendly young people’ as Mass. College of Pharmacy continues to expand. This is a very desirable student demographic – according to the school, the students’ average age is 28, which translates as mature-grad-students-not-looking-for-the-next-house-party. You are right about trying to retain these students as they enter the workforce.
But do you think that an expanded freight yard will be a draw for future residential housing? What does that do for potential buyers in the Chevalier building (if that project goes forward as planned)?
And does an increase in rapid commuter trains really bring young people to Worcester – or is it a one-way trip out to work (in Boston) in the am, and then back to Worcester in the evening (and then into cars as quickly as possible in order to get home at a reasonable hour)?
I have lived in Worcester for my entire life and resisted the urge to move to the suburbs after college, so I do have a vested interest in the city. I have chosen to raise my family here and at times have questioned why? But, I still believe in the city and want the downtown area to be alive, vibrant and a destination for its citizens. I just can’t wrap my head around how a huge freight yard will help to achieve that mix.
Thank you for furthering the discussion.
Thanks. I’d like to see Jim’s response to this.
Regarding Chevalier — regardless whether the freight yard is expanded or not, you’ve still got a building that has one (or two, really) sides facing a highway. I guess we’ll see which is the biggest hurdle!
Regarding lofts, I’d like to note that there’s a penthouse for sale at the Adams Street Lofts. (I’ve linked to Crystal’s review of them before, but her description matches the assessment of someone else I know who saw the lofts.) My impression is that these lofts are not selling as well as hoped, so I’d be extra interested to see if the Chevalier Lofts fare better.
For me, $300k + $300/month in condo fees is a lot of money, and perhaps the point is to attract someone who is a Boston commuter and would like to walk home from Union Station. Also, Brendan has pointed out (on 508) that freight yards aren’t necessarily incompatible with a healthy night scene, but — again — we’ll have to see.
We shouldn’t be thinking of downtown as eventually being a destination for Worcester’s citizens. This is the kind of thinking that has gotten us in this predicament in the first place.
Think of it as eventually becoming a home for its citizens and then you will see that it will become a destination for the region.
Worcester has to stop thinking of the dense urban experience in terms of nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Do you think the CSX expansion helps, hurts, or doesn’t really matter for the livability of downtown?
Helps. Even before the commuter rail and all the other spin off it means more jobs for people who need them. Blue collar jobs. Less unemployment in Worcester means better livability for all of us.
I don’t think there are any plans for rapid trains, TPTB pushed for all the stops between Framingham and WOrcester to create a “reverse commute”
[...] Jordan Levy complains that Councilor Palpatine is being a bully over this CSX expansion thing. Brendan supports the [...]
Watch Putnam Lane this morning, its last commute, ever, between 7am and 8:30am.
Wave goodbye with us.