Could this revive the south coast? (Boston, Brockton: to live in, costs, train)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by 90Cantab

I didn't say it was good, I said it's better positioned to improve than FR/NB. ****, it can't get any worse in Lawrence. It can down south. Lawrence is a shade under 80k in population, combined FR/NB clock in at roughly 175k - the problems Lawtown has are magnified on the south coast. Least Mayor Rivera isn't bringing his pistol into work for show-and-tell.

I don't know about that. Politically, Fall River is a bit of a mess right now (but Lawrence is still much worse). I think Fall River and New Bedford may have a little more economic potential. Lowell and Lawrence, for example, are planned industrial towns built along swift flowing rivers for power. Not only has manufacturing all but entirely left the region, but the swift flowing river is now obsolete from a functional standpoint (aesthetically it's nice).

Fall River and New Bedford are both seaport cities on navigable waterways. New Bedford currently has a massive shipping and staging seaport terminal under construction on the harborfront. It has the highest grossing fishing fleet in the nation. Both cities are experiencing growth as seaports and are poised for more. New Bedford as a very good regional airport (which just completed a new expansion last week). UMass Dartmouth isn't quite as prominant in New Bedford as UMass Lowell, but it's another driving economic force in the region just as UMass Lowell is in the Merrimack Valley.

Lowell and Lawrence are better poised to grow as urban suburbs of Boston due to proximity (closer) and rail connection. There's no denying that. However, New Bedford and Fall River seem like they have more potential to be semi-independent, divirsified economies than Lowell or Lawrence.

[90Cantab]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Lowell and Lawrence are better poised to grow as urban suburbs of Boston due to proximity (closer) and rail connection. There's no denying that. However, New Bedford and Fall River seem like they have more potential to be semi-independent, divirsified economies than Lowell or Lawrence.

I agree with this mostly. New Bedford is the second highest grossing fishery (in terms of volume, value of seafood landed) in the US behind Port Arthur(?) in Alaska. However, that fishery cannot persist much longer - there are no fish and the Feds are getting fed up (excuse the pun). Believe, I would love to see Fall River come back strong - but here's worry:

Lawrence, Lowell, Fall River, and New Bedford were former textile cities, the narrative of deindustrialization in New England has been that heavy, machine manufacturing as seen in the Connecticut River valley is far more resilient than textile, shoe, etc.. lower-value added industries. If Lowell, Lawrence, Brockton, and other former centers of textile manufacturing cannot reinvigorate local economies autonomous from Boston (and they haven't, really), then I just don't see how Fall River and New Bedford are going to manage it. The three I mentioned (along with Haverhill) are fortunate that they are feasible as commuter suburbs to Boston, Fall River and New Bedford are more in the orbit of Providence than Boston. The days of the Fall River-line to New York aren't coming back anytime soon, the cities need to make use of what assets they have left: population, density, ports, and buildings.

If there's a bright spot, it's the port. That's where the future is, we agree. UMD too could become a quite useful tool. Honestly, I think the best thing to hope for SE coast's economic viability is what happens in Rhode Island - instead of a semi-autonomous FR/NB, I'd rather see a healthy Providence-Pawtucket-Fall River-New Bedford agglomeration.

[timberline742]

The deep water port being built in New Bedford should help the economy somewhat. But the fishery downturn is going to be horrible.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by 90Cantab

I agree with this mostly. New Bedford is the second highest grossing fishery (in terms of volume, value of seafood landed) in the US behind Port Arthur(?) in Alaska. However, that fishery cannot persist much longer - there are no fish and the Feds are getting fed up (excuse the pun).

This is incorrect. New Bedford is #1 by value and has been for a few years. $379 million. The next 4 ports in the list are in Alaska and range from $197 million to $102 million. The dominant source of fishing revenue in New Bedford is scallops which do nothing but increase in price. Scalloping is not being shut down. It's the ground fishing (cod/haddock) that should have been shut down a decade ago.

By volume, the top 4 Alaska ports all land far more pounds of fish but fish is much cheaper than scallops.

NOAA citation:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webp..._YEARD.RESULTS

I was born in New Bedford. I grew up in South Dartmouth. When I graduated from college, I moved to the Boston 'burbs because I couldn't possibly commute to any high tech job from my home town. I always came back home on summer weekends. Padanaram Harbor and Buzzards Bay is great sailing & boating. There are a lot of excellent beaches (most private). It's superb bicycling country. 25 or 30 years later, I landed a telecommuting job and moved back as a summer part-timer.

I don't think an Amazon warehouse in Fall River is going to "save" the Southcoast but every new job certainly helps. The way you "save" the Southcoast is by making it possible to get from New Bedford or Fall River to Boston during rush hour in 40 minutes. That's express rail, not the stupid train service being adopted that will run on slow track, stop a dozen times, and take 90+ minutes. You're not going to get many commuters to pick New Bedford and Fall River when they're facing a 4 hour daily door to door travel time with a very expensive train ticket.

[90Cantab]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

This is incorrect. New Bedford is #1 by value and has been for a few years. $379 million. The next 4 ports in the list are in Alaska and range from $197 million to $102 million. The dominant source of fishing revenue in New Bedford is scallops which do nothing but increase in price. Scalloping is not being shut down. It's the ground fishing (cod/haddock) that should have been shut down a decade ago.

By volume, the top 4 Alaska ports all land far more pounds of fish but fish is much cheaper than scallops.

Ah okay, source I used must have conflated the Alaskan fisheries into one statistic. Still, what's the upshot if the ground fishermen were to be shut down tomorrow - could the fishermen transition to scalloping or would that require investment in new gear on their part? My mother grew up in Westport near the Point; I've heard all the stories of fishermen battling it out on land over cut lines, encroaching on someone's turf, or supporting Sporting over Benfica, etc.. I'd imagine there'd definitely be some sharp elbows if the scallop fishery had to absorb lapsed ground fishermen.

Your experience reflects the difficulty we've mentioned here - the SE is just out of reach of Boston physically (don't get me started on building out SE rail before electrification and capacity issues have been addressed and/or funded) but close enough that Boston will siphon off workers and companies. I agree with you that if the future lies with Boston (and not say Provi) then you need hsr, but given the T's ridiculous 20% of sales tax revenue stream, massive debt service payments from the big dig, and catalog of other necessary capital improvements - Fall River and New Bedford might have to wait a while.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The way you "save" the Southcoast is by making it possible to get from New Bedford or Fall River to Boston during rush hour in 40 minutes. That's express rail, not the stupid train service being adopted that will run on slow track, stop a dozen times, and take 90+ minutes. You're not going to get many commuters to pick New Bedford and Fall River when they're facing a 4 hour daily door to door travel time with a very expensive train ticket.

But the reasons why it would stop is frankly people live in those other areas. Consider for a moment. If someone wants to live in FR/NB and work in Boston and is waiting for the rail why not just work in Brockton? The rail is already in place and the trip is 30 minutes not 40.

The way I see it a city should have jobs and frankly you should not have to have a car if you live in a city.
We are losing site of the fact that frankly there is no real gain by forcing everything into Boston and pretending as if that keeps costs low. Boston is easy to get to via public transit but you get so much more for your money outside of it.

[parried]

That doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. What that region of the state needs is it's own economy again. Not a "link" to Boston. Basically you just want to reinforce the main problem OF this whole state. That everything must revolve around Boston and everywhere else can decay.

"Moreover, Massachusetts has become a tale of two Commonwealths, one in the Boston metropolitan area where the economy is booming and one beyond Route 495 where there are pockets of persistent economic stagnation and decline. We can do better." - Charlie Baker

[90Cantab]

Originally Posted by parried

That doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. What that region of the state needs is it's own economy again. Not a "link" to Boston. Basically you just want to reinforce the main problem OF this whole state. That everything must revolve around Boston and everywhere else can decay.

"Moreover, Massachusetts has become a tale of two Commonwealths, one in the Boston metropolitan area where the economy is booming and one beyond Route 495 where there are pockets of persistent economic stagnation and decline. We can do better." - Charlie Baker

The economies of Fall River were always predicated on links to other areas in the US - whether it's cheap cotton from the south or access to the economy in Boston, neither have been truly "independent". Even this new Amazon distro center is going to cater primarily to Provi and Boston.

Nobody, at least nobody born and raised in Massachusetts, wants anywhere outside of Boston to decay. That's an incorrect assumption. But we also have to contend with economic realities that suggest that location is more important than ever - that whole "end of commuting, by telecommuting" notion is dead. Boston for its part needs these towns because office and housing rents are getting way out of hand, these towns need Boston because it offers access to a thriving economy. Yet money and the businesses in this state are flocking to Boston and near-in environs, that's just how it is - Fall River and New Bedford can develop service industries related to their ports, but that's still servicing the Boston area. There's no way you can get around it, we're hopelessly linked.

But disabuse yourself that people in Boston don't get give a s*it about the rest of the state, we do. Most of us have families from other towns (mine's from Fall River for what it's worth), that left when industry went south (in both figurative and physical terms). I would effing love it if a towns like NB or FR or Brockton could arrest the post-industrial decay and grow back into the growing cities - I just don't see how that's going to happen without Boston involved in one way or another.

[johngolf]

As a former, long term MAholer, when did the term "South Coast" come into use/vogue? Is there a North Coast?

I knew them as the South Shore and North Shore even if not on the ocean.

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by johngolf

As a former, long term MAholer, when did the term "South Coast" come into use/vogue? Is there a North Coast?

I knew them as the South Shore and North Shore even if not on the ocean.

This is a different area. Cities and towns near New Bedford and Fall River, along the coast.