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.
I don't want to sound like the transportation issue is trivial. But why is 'rail' the only solution being discussed? It's the most high cost / high risk for failure option.
What about developing bus lines & park-and-ride? It's true that public transportation has it's place and benefits. But it's also true that the state is not flush with unlimited funds.... Seems to me politicians are only looking to break ground on huge infrastructure that they can claim fame to in the future instead of more modest yet effective solutions.
I don't want to sound like the transportation issue is trivial. But why is 'rail' the only solution being discussed? It's the most high cost / high risk for failure option.
What about developing bus lines & park-and-ride? It's true that public transportation has it's place and benefits. But it's also true that the state is not flush with unlimited funds.... Seems to me politicians are only looking to break ground on huge infrastructure that they can claim fame to in the future instead of more modest yet effective solutions.
Is it the only one being discussed?
MassDOT's plan includes billions of dollars for highway upgrades and improvements statewide. It also includes over $400 million for regional transit agencies to expand and upgrade their bus services. As CaseyB pointed out, we have quite a few park and rides.
For what it's worth, I brought up the South Coast Rail project as one example from the proposal. Designated bus lanes along Route 24 and 93 were proposed as an alternative to making the line a rail project. The Federal Highway Administration shot the plan down, leaving a rail connection as the only alternative.
I don't know that rail is at any more of a risk of failing than highways or any other form of transit. I look at highways in Massachusetts like Route 79 in Fall River which has a staggeringly low volume of traffic, parallels a highway a few miles away (24) that is under capacity, and has expensive bridges and ramps that now need to be taken down or replaced at exorbitant costs simply because they're rotting away and there's no need for them. Does New Bedford really need a highway running from downtown all the way to the South End? No. Which is why it's being overhauled right now (at no small cost) to return the area as close as they can to the way it was before they built the highway. Is it really necessary to have Highway 5 running along the river in West Springfield? No. 391 into Holyoke? No. I could go on with little highways that are essentially useless, but there's no need when I could bring up the Big Dig. It's one of the largest highway projects in American History and has it really improved traffic flow through Boston all that much? Maybe a better question is has the minimal improvement been worth the cost? I don't think most people would argue that it hasn't been worth the money. When you bring up the phrase "transportation failure" in Massachusetts, almost anyone will immediately associate that phrase with the Big Dig.
Our education may be the best in the country, but when you look closer, low-income students are far behind.
More investment in education today will reduce a lifetime of future welfare expenses. Future welfare recipients are today's low-income students. If they get an early start from pre-school, extended days in middle school with more in-depth instruction, and better financial help with college, you may save 50 years of welfare payments, or in some cases prison expenses.
We, as a society have a long way to go, and we need to make investments. You are not giving your money to people on another planet. We are all in the same boat. If you don't teach them how to fish, you will have to fish for them for the rest of your lives.
When some of these low-income kids are the first from their families to graduate from college, and start paying their taxes, it will reduce the tax burden on your kids, and prevent generations of welfare costs.
If you don't invest now you will have to pay more later.
Similarly, better infrastructure = better economy = more jobs = more other people paying taxes = better standard of living for all.
Rail is usually citied more than buses because frankly rail has right of way and doesn't have to yield to red lights etc. Buses can be good sometimes in lieu of trains. Companies like Boltbus, Greyhound and Megabus do a pretty good job these days for longer routes. Buses can end up making more frequent stops and have to be serviced and can run the risk of being in accidents. This isn't to say that trains are accident free but years ago I knew a guy that was reended on logan express and received a concussion on his way to vacation!
"The argument is that you have hundreds of thousands of people living on the South Coast whose only means of accessing employment in Boston is to sit in traffic on Route 24, 128 and 93 each day."
Or to drive to any of the commutter rail stops. Halifax, Plymouth, Kingston, Middleboro, Lakeville and Bridgewater are all much closer than driving all the way. Not everyone that goes to a rail station lives in that town.
"The South Coast is left out. A rail connection provides that region of the state with better access to thousands of jobs and it provides the Boston area with better access to hundreds of thousands of potential additions to the local workforce."
I think that's about half true. The second part well I don't know of that many Boston employers that have a difficulty finding employees. The unemployment rate in Boston is actually quite low and when you factor in how many that live closer that go in it simply might not do much to increase total employment. It's like a retailer that opens up more shops, you can't create more customers by dividing them.
"I hate the fact that people like to lump them in together. For starters, Brockton's only major positive is proximity to Boston."
Ouch. Brockton isn't bad. It's a far cry from what it had in crime say in the 1980s. I'd argue there can be a bit of a divide of the development around the mall (Market basket :-D) and the west vs the east.
"It's no longer a manufacturing center and has little merit as an independent city. It's an affordable urban suburb. Fall River and New Bedford have much more merit as independent cities (particularly NB). For starters, both are seaport cities."
But one could try to counter that argument by citing the decline of the fishing industry over the past 30 years albeit that's really the Federal governments fault for putting in all those restrictions.
"New Bedford also passenger ferry service to Martha's Vineyard and Cuttyunk as well as passenger air service to the Islands from its airport which is also an international trade zone. Without even taking passengers into account, the improvements to the tracks by South Coast Rail make both cities' sea and airports much more valuable for freight transport by allowing freight trains to transfer goods much more efficiently along those routes."
Although at the same point long ago when I worked in retail ANYTHING that shipped to the islands had to go to a freight company out of Hyannis.
"A rail connection from Boston to New Bedford will allow people in the Boston area to get from Boston to Martha's Vineyard without using a car or sitting in Cape traffic. Taking the train from Boston-New Bedford and the ferry from NB to MV will be the quickest way to reach the islands without flying or taking a car."
Although that is true there's only one problem with that. That might be for day trips only. Furthermore there's already buses that take people further south. To take a train to bridgewater, kingston/plymouth and then a bus can take you pretty far (gatra being one of them). Let's say someone wanted to buy larger items on MV and bring them back..how would they do that? When I travel overseas generally I don't buy major things because frankly I'm not going to ship things back and factor out insurance. The islands (and the cape for that matter) aren't nearly as big as what they once were.
"Finally, New Bedford and Fall River provide a more appealing livable experience than Brockton. For one, about 48% of Fall River is undeveloped and forested. It has large chunks that are very suburban and pleasant. It is also a waterfront city and has a number of marinas and waterfront attractions. Same goes for New Bedford. New Bedford's downtown is a National Historic Park and is far more attractive than Brockton's downtown area. Both cities provide a lot more in terms of outdoor recreation. The only thing giving Brockton a real advantage over Fall River and New Bedford is proximity to Boston. That's something that would be offset by commuter rail connections to FR and NB."
But as said earlier Brockton already has a commuter rail system and a bus system. There are parks in brockton although I have not personally been in them. There's the rox baseball team, a few colleges, the mall granted it wasn't exactly all planned out. I'd argue the high school is also much better as it has turned around.
"I also consider Plymouth to be different too. The problem with Plymouth is that the station is over 2 miles from downtown. It's not really within walking distance and there's very limited (if any) transit or shuttle connectivity to the town center. Places like Salem, Gloucester and Rockport are better examples because the train station is in or next to the town center. Most people won't walk more than 1/4 mile to or from a public transit station. That's illustrated clearly in that lots of people visit Salem, Gloucester, and Rockport by rail but not many visit Plymouth. The station is poorly located. Even Lowell would benefit from better Pedestrian access to the city center from the station."
As said earlier there's a difference between those staying and those just doing a day trip. I don't think a rail is going to help that much with tourism, it is largely from getting people to work and back and helps lower the number of cars on the road.
Why don't Democrats ever want to cut spending, they just want to increase spending. There is so much corruption and so much pork in all government that could be addressed, yet, all we hear from Democratically run states and the federal government is spend spend spend. It's quite disheartening to us average folks trying hard to stay afloat. Shame on all these politicians - TERM LIMITS!!!
Why don't Democrats ever want to cut spending, they just want to increase spending. There is so much corruption and so much pork in all government that could be addressed, yet, all we hear from Democratically run states and the federal government is spend spend spend. It's quite disheartening to us average folks trying hard to stay afloat. Shame on all these politicians - TERM LIMITS!!!
In this state, the current leaders obviously feel that bigger Government is better. Not to mention the fact that unions give so much support to the elected leaders. The state spends more money and the work goes to those unions and politically connected people.
I remember Deval running back in 2006 on the promise of property tax relief. Where is it? I don't care if it's a Republican, or Democrat in office. Politicians are all the same, say what they think we want to hear and act like they truly care during election time, and then sit back and relax when it's not.
In this state, the current leaders obviously feel that bigger Government is better. Not to mention the fact that unions give so much support to the elected leaders. The state spends more money and the work goes to those unions and politically connected people.
I remember Deval running back in 2006 on the promise of property tax relief. Where is it? I don't care if it's a Republican, or Democrat in office. Politicians are all the same, say what they think we want to hear and act like they truly care during election time, and then sit back and relax when it's not.
That was something that has always confused me during the 2008 presidential elections. I personally have nothing against Barak Obama, but have never been able to figure out why people voted for him. His past had nothing in it that would have made him an acceptable candidate for president, so it had to be what he said. Anyone who listens to a politician instead of looking at their past history of doing, is voting for them for the wrong reasons. He was, in my opinion, unqualified and incompetent in 2008 to be president. Just has always confounded me.
gop tried to be reasonable and flexible that is what they were told to do.
they gave ground. the result, no spending cuts, higher taxes and a raised cliff/ceiling.
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.
