Emergency Closure of Bridge to (Boston's) Long island

[WormtownNative]

Originally Posted by stellarfun

1.) Don't count on the city of Boston to do anything which requires spending more money on parks.

2.) When Long Island was populated, the city of Boston maintained two fire companies (the fire brigade) on the island for fire protection purposes. Good luck to any private entity seeking to operate a residential or public accommodation complex on Long Island in getting insurance coverage.

The Fire Brigade is only 1 company, staffed with 4 personnel (But it has both an engine & ladder on the island for the brigade). As of now, the Brigade is still active, but only when the island is utilized by camps.

The notion of reusing the buildings out there is feasible, and BFD has negotiated with developers in the past for projects. (See Marine Unit & Engine 10's firehouse as examples).

[stellarfun]

Originally Posted by WormtownNative

The Fire Brigade is only 1 company, staffed with 4 personnel (But it has both an engine & ladder on the island for the brigade). As of now, the Brigade is still active, but only when the island is utilized by camps.

The notion of reusing the buildings out there is feasible, and BFD has negotiated with developers in the past for projects. (See Marine Unit & Engine 10's firehouse as examples).

Thank you. Interesting that the brigade is still intermittently active.

I assume electricity is provided by submarine cable. I assume the water supply is via a buried pipe. Sewage, either septic, or was dumped straight in the ocean (the latter is prohibited by the Clean Water Act of 1972, but if facilities were being closed, any enforcement could have been deferred)?

[WormtownNative]

Originally Posted by stellarfun

Thank you. Interesting that the brigade is still intermittently active.

I assume electricity is provided by submarine cable. I assume the water supply is via a buried pipe. Sewage, either septic, or was dumped straight in the ocean (the latter is prohibited by the Clean Water Act of 1972, but if facilities were being closed, any enforcement could have been deferred)?

Given the lawsuits over cleaning up Boston Harbor.......I'd imagine there's some sort of sewer system on the island (or some way for the *stuff* to get shipped to Deer Island).

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by JeffDowntown

Unfortunately, not that simple. There are massive jurisdictional overlaps among bodies managing the harbor islands. It is not simply a National Park.

The Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area is managed by the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership: which includes:

United States National Park Service
United States Coast Guard
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
Massachusetts Port Authority
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
City of Boston
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston Harbor Island Alliance
Thompson Island Outward Bound Education Center
The Trustees of Reservations

Lots of room for circular finger pointing.

Originally Posted by West

This is a fair point, but it's not the case that all of those entities share equal responsibility for every island. The BHIP website has a breakdown of which entity has what:

http://www.bostonharborislands.org/the-partnership

For instance, the Coast Guard owns Little Brewster Island, and they handle the limited amount of visits there. I don't recall ever seeing anyone else having any authority over Little Brewster. So if anyone has a beef about how much access there is to Little Brewster, I don't think the USCG can point the finger at anyone else.

According to this site, the City of Boston is sole owner of Long Island, and that matches my recollection from other articles. So I think Long Island is the City's issue to deal with, though being an island means they get to interact with the USCG and US Army Corps of Engineers (at the very least) on any proposed alterations to navigational patterns and/or docking arrangement.

On other particular islands, your point gets more valid: DCR and City of Boston either co-own or co-manage Spectacle Island - this web site is internally contradictory on specifics - so there's plenty of wiggle room for a squabble.

On a more harbor-wide point of view, the huge array of entities makes your argument generally quite valid: it's a bureaucratic free for all, and I agree it's inherently prone to the multi-directional blame game. But when we're looking at any one island, I think we need to drill down to its specifics.

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a mess.

[stellarfun]

There is a sewage treatment plant on the island.

The large water tank looks to be maintained (painted red and white) by the FAA as a navigation aid (day marker?). From a article in the Herald, the water main to Long Island was carted away with the rest of the bridge.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opi...ge_into_harbor

[Mongo]

So Walsh said he was re-building the bridge:
http://www.universalhub.com/2018/wal...200-apartments

The Quincy mayor said he wouldn't support it:
http://www.universalhub.com/2018/qui...t-addicts-back

But can't Walsh tell him to pound sand?

As far as I understand it, both sides of the bridge, Moon Island and Long Island, belong to Boston, so Quincy doesn't actually get a say in the matter.

[Joel N. Weber II]

If Boston wants to spend $100 million on better transportation, isn't it likely that spending that on improved MBTA bus service would deliver better value than spending it on a new Long Island bridge?

[JumboBuc]

Originally Posted by Joel N. Weber II

If Boston wants to spend $100 million on better transportation, isn't it likely that spending that on improved MBTA bus service would deliver better value than spending it on a new Long Island bridge?

Really? Money spent on the Long Island bridge wouldn't be spent for "better transportation," it would be spent on homelessness and rehabilitation services. It just so happens that rebuilding the bridge is necessary to provide those services.

[Joel N. Weber II]

Originally Posted by JumboBuc

Really? Money spent on the Long Island bridge wouldn't be spent for "better transportation," it would be spent on homelessness and rehabilitation services. It just so happens that rebuilding the bridge is necessary to provide those services.

If you want to spend $100 million on those services, I doubt there's any shortage of reasonable locations where you could actually spend $100 million on those services instead of wasting $100 million on a bridge to provide a tiny subset of those services in a stupidly unaffordable location.

[CSTH]

If getting to this place is going to require taking a bus through another jurisdiction anyway...why not just rent space in an existing NIMBY-free facility somewhere else in E Mass? Put it next to incinerator in Lynn or whatever. Just seems like if theres a way to spend bridge money on actual services instead (or not spend it at all etc etc) that would be a good thing for everyone

[Joel N. Weber II]

Or there's the largely industrial area roughly bounded by I-93, the Mass Ave Connector, a bit of Melnea Cass Blvd, a bit of Hampden St, Norfolk Ave, and Boston St. What could we accomplish if we spent $100 million building housing for the homeless there?

[JumboBuc]

Originally Posted by Joel N. Weber II

Or there's the largely industrial area roughly bounded by I-93, the Mass Ave Connector, a bit of Melnea Cass Blvd, a bit of Hampden St, Norfolk Ave, and Boston St. What could we accomplish if we spent $100 million building housing for the homeless there?

That's exactly where the City opened up its replacement shelter when Long Island closed. Neighbors haven't been happy, and housing the homeless and addicted on the Methodone Mile isn't exactly the best thing for their long term recovery and rehabilitation prospects...

I agree that spending a bunch of money on the bridge is somewhat questionable, but Walsh and the City want to establish a full service campus for homelessness and rehabilitation programs. I consider that a laudable goal. It's easy to say "just put it somewhere else" but it's much harder to actually nail down a specific "somewhere else" that works. Long Island has a lot going for it, and there are roughly zero people in Boston who have any issue with the campus being there. Boston isn't going to locate (or necessarily even be able to locate) a campus outside of City limits. The only problem is that bridge...

[Rover]

Agree with this. City already has a facility located on the island to house approx. 750 homeless and 250 substance abusers. Furthermore, it might be a good idea for people in this situation to be away from the middle of the city for their own sake and in a quieter setting. Beyond that, land in Boston is extremely valuable, while I'm assuming nothing can realistically be built on Long Island except for these public service facilities. Walsh is right on this one. Rebuild the bridge.

[sm89]

A lot of the people who are "pro-bridge" (not necessarily here, but in universalhub comments) seem to forget that $100 million is the capital cost of the bridge. There will also be long term costs for maintenance which might even be more than the cost for ferry service or whatever else they can come up with.

Please consider the City of Boston's track record for maintaining the bridges that it owns (the ones that aren't owned by the state):

1. Long Island Bridge: Had to be torn down.
2. North Washington St Bridge: "truck speed limit" due to vibrations, center span closure, debris routinely falling into river.
3. Northern Ave Bridge: They couldn't even keep it safe enough for pedestrians to cross. Will be torn down soon.
4. Sullivan Sq overpass: Had to be torn down.
5. Sullivan Sq underpass: Outer lanes closed due to failing sidewalls.

[bakgwailo]

Originally Posted by sm89

A lot of the people who are "pro-bridge" (not necessarily here, but in universalhub comments) seem to forget that $100 million is the capital cost of the bridge. There will also be long term costs for maintenance which might even be more than the cost for ferry service or whatever else they can come up with.

Please consider the City of Boston's track record for maintaining the bridges that it owns (the ones that aren't owned by the state):

1. Long Island Bridge: Had to be torn down.
2. North Washington St Bridge: "truck speed limit" due to vibrations, center span closure, debris routinely falling into river.
3. Northern Ave Bridge: They couldn't even keep it safe enough for pedestrians to cross. Will be torn down soon.
4. Sullivan Sq overpass: Had to be torn down.
5. Sullivan Sq underpass: Outer lanes closed due to failing sidewalls.

The problem here is that if they want to use Long Island, nothing short of a bridge is going to be acceptable, ferry service won't cut it.

[stevebikes]

Originally Posted by Mongo

So Walsh said he was re-building the bridge:
http://www.universalhub.com/2018/wal...200-apartments

The Quincy mayor said he wouldn't support it:
http://www.universalhub.com/2018/qui...t-addicts-back

But can't Walsh tell him to pound sand?

As far as I understand it, both sides of the bridge, Moon Island and Long Island, belong to Boston, so Quincy doesn't actually get a say in the matter.

The City of Boston owns the land known as Moon Island, but Moon Island is located within the City of Quincy. Long Island is (mostly) owned by Boston and is in Boston.