Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To the latter point about ridership, I think ride shares have as much to do with it as anything. As the number of people working in Boston increases, we're obviously seeing more people driving to work (hence the traffic) and more peak hour T ridership. But more of what would be off-peak trips on the T are now rideshare trips. There were 42 million rideshare trips in Boston in 2018. Compare that to peak taxi usage which was 14.2 Million in 2012 (Uber/Lyft weren't in Boston then) (Globe). While some of those rideshare trips replace taxi trips (there were about 5 million taxi trips in 2018), the vast majority were previously off-peak T trips that are now rideshares which is why off-peak T ridership is on the decline. At around midnight, it just makes sense for someone to summon a +/- $10 Uber (or $5 Uber pool) the moment they want to go and ride 20 minutes between, say, Brighton and Somerville than it does to to take 1 hour or more to do the same trip on the T. And that assumes it's not a long walk to the nearest station and you're not going to have to wait 15 minutes for the next off-peak train. That's why tens of millions of people are doing it. Between surge pricing and rush hour traffic, rideshares don't make as much sense for most. Some are still using them for regular peak commutes, but the T still beats them in terms of speed and cost effectiveness.
People like the idea of trains in particular and such because it makes them feel like they are in a big and important place and having the option to use it even if you don’t bid cool. Just like people will say the ocean is better than a lake because you can sail even if they don’t have a boat.
An example is LA and Denver undertaking massive expansions of metro rail services with large public mandates with declining ridership numbers.
Yes rideshare has to do with it too but you need to be wealthy to consider taking a $36 trip over a $5.50 trip because it’s 12 minutes faster.
People like the idea of trains in particular and such because it makes them feel like they are in a big and important place and having the option to use it even if you don’t bid cool. Just like people will say the ocean is better than a lake because you can sail even if they don’t have a boat.
An example is LA and Denver undertaking massive expansions of metro rail services with large public mandates with declining ridership numbers.
Yes rideshare has to do with it too but you need to be wealthy to consider taking a $36 trip over a $5.50 trip because it’s 12 minutes faster.
Gotcha. Yeah, I agree that having options is more appealing, even if not everyone is a regular user.
What you're saying about rideshares is true of rush hour commuters, long distance (i.e. Downtown Boston to the 128 belt), or some peak airport trips (both of which many tech employees can afford), but is not true of the off-peak trips in/around town which is where the T is losing riders. Case in point, I took a $7 uber home from a bar near Central Square at 8pm on Tuesday because it was cold and wet, it was going to take me 10 minutes to walk to the T where I'd have to wait up to 10 minutes longer for a train to come, then ride to Davis where I'd have to walk another 10 minutes home. I have a T pass and I'm not wealthy by most Boston metrics. The $7 was worth it for the time (about 15-20 minutes faster) and convenience (I summoned a car the moment I wanted to leave and I didn't have to wait in the rain/snow). Trips like that are what's pulling tens of millions of potential T passengers from the T. Before Uber, I 100% would have taken the T. I would never have hailed or called a cab (assuming an available one happened to be driving by) and gambled on the metered fare. But I'd still never use a ride share for a rush hour trip to/from work. It would be upwards of $30-40 at peak hours (as low as $10 off-peak. Even less for a pool/shared car) and the time savings would be negligible (or actually longer to drive). That's why the T is still gaining riders at peak times.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Gotcha. Yeah, I agree that having options is more appealing, even if not everyone is a regular user.
What you're saying about rideshares is true of rush hour commuters, long distance (i.e. Downtown Boston to the 128 belt), or some peak airport trips (both of which many tech employees can afford), but is not true of the off-peak trips in/around town which is where the T is losing riders. Case in point, I took a $7 uber home from a bar near Central Square at 8pm on Tuesday because it was cold and wet, it was going to take me 10 minutes to walk to the T where I'd have to wait up to 10 minutes longer for a train to come, then ride to Davis where I'd have to walk another 10 minutes home. I have a T pass and I'm not wealthy by most Boston metrics. The $7 was worth it for the time (about 15-20 minutes faster) and convenience (I summoned a car the moment I wanted to leave and I didn't have to wait in the rain/snow). Trips like that are what's pulling tens of millions of potential T passengers from the T. Before Uber, I 100% would have taken the T. I would never have hailed or called a cab (assuming an available one happened to be driving by) and gambled on the metered fare. But I'd still never use a ride share for a rush hour trip to/from work. It would be upwards of $30-40 at peak hours (as low as $10 off-peak. Even less for a pool/shared car) and the time savings would be negligible (or actually longer to drive). That's why the T is still gaining riders at peak times.
Yeah, I'm with you there. I would never have hailed a cab. Maybe once a year in torrential rain, at most. Just way too inconvenient and expensive. But at 1am, esp with a cut rate shared ride, I'm in.
.People hoping for a fairy tale revival of backwards medium and small sized cities believe despite decades of empirical evidence in the US and across the developed world.
Maybe not "backwards", but plenty of small and medium sized cities are doing very well and outpacing Boston for growth. The key is making those backwards ones ie. Springfield and Fall River less "backwards". The ones that can will swim, those that can't will sink.
Maybe not "backwards", but plenty of small and medium sized cities are doing very well and outpacing Boston for growth. The key is making those backwards ones ie. Springfield and Fall River less "backwards". The ones that can will swim, those that can't will sink.
Which small cities are outpacing Boston for growth? Some medium sized cities are growing faster in terms of population (i.e. Raleigh, NC) and maybe a handful of other economic sectors, but they're not outpacing Boston, the Bay Area, etc. on the tech front (they've mostly lost ground to these cities on the tech front in recent years).
The problem with the backwards ones (at least in New England) is that they are neither independent enough to be the economic/cultural hub of a region a la Portland or Burlington, nor are they tied in tightly enough to a large major city to function as a true suburb/satellite a la Waltham or Stamford. Places like Fall River and Springfield are in the unfortunate position of being too close to Boston/Providence/Hartford to be independent economic centers, but too far to to really feed off of the talent pool, infrastructure, etc. that fuel cities like Waltham.
Frankly, I don't see a "key" to doing that apart from prolonged price increases in Boston forcing the skilled workforce to move further out combined with far better transit infrastructure providing better connections between the major city and the satellite city. I see even less hope for Springfield as Hartford itself is in such a bad space with the exodus of the insurance industry that Springfield has nothing to feed off of and Hartford isn't expanding the way Boston is. I also don't ever see places like Portland or Burlington really having proportional "booms" in the tech field as they neither have the quantity or quality of workers tech companies need concentrated, nor do they have the number of employers offering high wages that the quality tech workers would require to locate there en masse.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Which small cities are outpacing Boston for growth? Some medium sized cities are growing faster in terms of population (i.e. Raleigh, NC) and maybe a handful of other economic sectors, but they're not outpacing Boston, the Bay Area, etc. on the tech front (they've mostly lost ground to these cities on the tech front in recent years).
.
In GDP, the gap just seems to be widening between the top tiers and the rest.
Which small cities are outpacing Boston for growth? Some medium sized cities are growing faster in terms of population (i.e. Raleigh, NC) and maybe a handful of other economic sectors, but they're not outpacing Boston, the Bay Area, etc. on the tech front (they've mostly lost ground to these cities on the tech front in recent years).
The problem with the backwards ones (at least in New England) is that they are neither independent enough to be the economic/cultural hub of a region a la Portland or Burlington, nor are they tied in tightly enough to a large major city to function as a true suburb/satellite a la Waltham or Stamford. Places like Fall River and Springfield are in the unfortunate position of being too close to Boston/Providence/Hartford to be independent economic centers, but too far to to really feed off of the talent pool, infrastructure, etc. that fuel cities like Waltham.
Frankly, I don't see a "key" to doing that apart from prolonged price increases in Boston forcing the skilled workforce to move further out combined with far better transit infrastructure providing better connections between the major city and the satellite city. I see even less hope for Springfield as Hartford itself is in such a bad space with the exodus of the insurance industry that Springfield has nothing to feed off of and Hartford isn't expanding the way Boston is. I also don't ever see places like Portland or Burlington really having proportional "booms" in the tech field as they neither have the quantity or quality of workers tech companies need concentrated, nor do they have the number of employers offering high wages that the quality tech workers would require to locate there en masse.
I don't know about tech, but plenty of smaller cities have economies that are overall growing at a faster rate than Boston. Don't quote me on every single one of these, but off the top of my head Boise, ID, Fort Meyers, FL, Colorado Springs, Greenville, SC, Fayetteville, AR, (even places like Grand Rapids, MI?) are growing at a good pace and passing Boston in many years. True most of those are geographically independent (although is Colorado Springs further from Denver than Springfield is from Boston???), but also Portland isn't a whole lot further from Boston than Springfield is. Most of these places do have appeals (weather, scenery...) that a place like Springfield will never be able to replicate. It would be nice to think however, that Springfield could some day be a Grand Rapids...
But anyhow, that wasn't even the point of that post. I was simply refuting what one poster insinuated about ALL smaller cities being left behind and not coming back. Not all growth and innovation is in the coastal metropolises (far from it in fact), let's not flatter ourselves too much here...
People like the idea of trains in particular and such because it makes them feel like they are in a big and important place and having the option to use it even if you don’t bid cool. Just like people will say the ocean is better than a lake because you can sail even if they don’t have a boat.
An example is LA and Denver undertaking massive expansions of metro rail services with large public mandates with declining ridership numbers.
Yes rideshare has to do with it too but you need to be wealthy to consider taking a $36 trip over a $5.50 trip because it’s 12 minutes faster.
I don't know about tech, but plenty of smaller cities have economies that are overall growing at a faster rate than Boston. Don't quote me on every single one of these, but off the top of my head Boise, ID, Fort Meyers, FL, Colorado Springs, Greenville, SC, Fayetteville, AR, (even places like Grand Rapids, MI?) are growing at a good pace and passing Boston in many years. True most of those are geographically independent (although is Colorado Springs further from Denver than Springfield is from Boston???), but also Portland isn't a whole lot further from Boston than Springfield is. Most of these places do have appeals (weather, scenery...) that a place like Springfield will never be able to replicate. It would be nice to think however, that Springfield could some day be a Grand Rapids...
But anyhow, that wasn't even the point of that post. I was simply refuting what one poster insinuated about ALL smaller cities being left behind and not coming back. Not all growth and innovation is in the coastal metropolises (far from it in fact), let's not flatter ourselves too much here...
Fair enough, I don't think all smaller cities are left behind. Most of the ones you're talking about (and others) are doing quite well and there will always be a place for them. But speaking specifically about tech, the gap between the top handful (inc. Boston) and all of the others is widening. And again, almost all of the smaller ones you've mentioned are more independent than the backwards ones in MA.
The reason Springfield is not comparable to Portland or Colorado Springs, etc. and likely won't be a Grand Rapids is not so much the proximity to Boston, but the fact that it's also still the secondary economic hub in its own region. Hartford, which is only 25 miles away, is far and away the largest economic hub in that region. Even with the problems it has in the city limits. The Springfield area is also surrounded on 3 sides by other cities/metros that are economically more significant than Springfield itself. Albany, Boston (with Worcester between), and Hartford. So people on the edges of the Springfield Metro area are within commuting distance to bigger employment hubs. Portland has next to nothing of size within 50 miles unless you'd make the case that Portsmouth (on the edge of that 50 miles) and Lewiston are really pulling talent away. Colorado Springs is over 60 miles from Denver and has no other competing metros nearby. It's far more independent than Springfield.
I don't know about tech, but plenty of smaller cities have economies that are overall growing at a faster rate than Boston. Don't quote me on every single one of these, but off the top of my head Boise, ID, Fort Meyers, FL, Colorado Springs, Greenville, SC, Fayetteville, AR, (even places like Grand Rapids, MI?) are growing at a good pace and passing Boston in many years. True most of those are geographically independent (although is Colorado Springs further from Denver than Springfield is from Boston???), but also Portland isn't a whole lot further from Boston than Springfield is. Most of these places do have appeals (weather, scenery...) that a place like Springfield will never be able to replicate. It would be nice to think however, that Springfield could some day be a Grand Rapids...
But anyhow, that wasn't even the point of that post. I was simply refuting what one poster insinuated about ALL smaller cities being left behind and not coming back. Not all growth and innovation is in the coastal metropolises (far from it in fact), let's not flatter ourselves too much here...
As a sense of magnitude, there's roughly 10 tech roles in SF for every tech role in Boston. Feels like 5-10 tech roles in Boston for every tech role in the rest of New England. These are rough estimate, and I am placing a filter on what I consider a "tech role". Scripting, data structures, machine learning, front end & back end dev. Excel analysis and simple SQL or BI GUI consumption is below my threshold.
It's VERY hard to pass $500k annual comp in Boston area still. Not even as senior VP level. You need an equity stake. In SF, the FAANG L6 staff software engineers reach that level. Many are individual contributor technical roles, but others are management. It's not just about salary, but it is a reflection of the scope of technical responsibility and impact.
I love the Boston tech scene and the city in general. Large enough to be vibrant, but small enough not to be too hectic. It doesn't have the same degree of random excess. You don't have to compare yourself to some peer that caught a lucky IPO as a software developer and is now worth $5 million 3 years later.
Last edited by yellowstatus; 12-13-2019 at 01:08 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
