'Do Bostonians really care about Western MA' Globe article (Worcester: university, subsidized)

[FCMA]

Well what's funny is that Vermont wouldn't want to double its population by taking on Western MA. What's rural to a Massahole is utterly urban and too big for Vermont. Burlington is its largest city at 39,000 pop, and would suddenly find itself the seventh city behind Springfield, Chicopee, Holyoke, Westfield, and Pittsfield in population. Northampton, Amherst, Greenfield, West Springfield, North Adams, and South Hadley are all probably larger than Vermont's second city, Rutland. Montpelier has the population of about Orange or Great Barrington, and less than Montague.

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by missionhill View Post
Well, they did build the turnpike and people at the time thought that made a huge difference to connecting east and west. I remember seeing my father off from Union Station in Springfield on a Buddliner to Boston but that was in the waning days of rail service everywhere, not only on the Springfield to Boston run. I took a New Haven RR train from Springfield to Boston myself once shortly before the New Haven was absorbed into Amtrak. It was very slow-- the route between Spfld and Worcester especially winds this way and that. In the meantime Peter Picknelly made a fortune with his Peter Pan service over the turnpike to Boston which was and is much faster than passenger trains. The Springfield to New York rail service has never ended, by the way, because Springfield is more aligned to Hartford, Hartford to New Haven, and so on, which has sustained the market for rail along that corridor.

Originally Posted by Boston_Burbs

That is a good point. I know lots of people in hampden county that work in metro Hartford. Lots if big employers like the insurance companies and defenders contractors.

Yeh, but didn't the FEDS build rte 91 N/S that connects Hartford to Springfield? It's nothing that Boston did to help us out.

The Mass Pike. Probably built so Bostonians could get out to Tanglewood in the Berkshires, lol.
I use the Mass Pike about twice yearly to get back to western Mass to visit friends.

(did anyone ever hear about taxation without representation?) No, guess not.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Originally Posted by missionhill View Post
[i]Yeh, but didn't the FEDS build rte 91 N/S that connects Hartford to Springfield? It's nothing that Boston did to help us out.

The Mass Pike. Probably built so Bostonians could get out to Tanglewood in the Berkshires, lol.
I use the Mass Pike about twice yearly to get back to western Mass to visit friends.

Technically it wasn't part of the federal interstate highway program. Some of the earlier roads were built by the states with bond issue funds and they collected tolls to pay off the bonds. New Jersey Tpke, Ohio Tpke, New York State Thruway, Maine Tpke, and the Mass Pike, among others. The state-built roads all had service areas which the interstate program did not allow. They were later absorbed into the interstate system. So it was a state project and had to be justified as worth all the trouble and expense.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Sometimes I think so. I moved out here to eastern MA partly because I was so sick and tired of being in the forgotten and ignored part of the state. I still live fairly rural and never go to Boston but the towns out here benefit from the overflow of Boston money. The towns out here get HEARD. They get state grants and they get visits from politicians.

When I lived in WMass I lived in civilized towns, believe it or not, and we did not have guns. There are colleges out there so it's not too much like Mississippi--we have Smith, Amherst, Mt Holyoke, Univ. of Mass. We have Deerfield Academy and lots of others that I am just too dumb (at the moment ) to think of, being a lowly western Massachusettser.

How many more people are they going to cram into the Boston area before someone realizes that there's a lot more space in this state and a lot of talent that could be put to use?

The trend is toward cities, not away from them. Have you been to Manhattan? or Paris? Or London? Boston is a cute, tree-lined suburb compared to those cities (and that's not even mentioning really crowded places like Hong Kong, Shanghai, or Tokyo). There's a lot more cramming to be done.

Note: There are many colleges in Mississippi, too. I'm not sure why it's socially acceptable to pick on a poor, significantly African-American state but it's just as conceited as Eastern Massachusetts people picking on Western Massachusetts people as being backward (which, for the record, I've never once heard someone say in my ten years here).

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by kingeorge

In the end we people of MA do not get what we deserve. But, we do not hold our institutions, nor our elected officials responsible for anything any more.

Oh the irony!

[mdovell]

"The problem is Boston should be where Worcester is, and not way in the corner. "

When it comes down to it the capital could easily be moved to another part of the state. It does not make logical sense from a cost perspective to put everything in Boston.

Businesses and government can lower expenses by relocating to more rural areas. I worked for a company now worth over 2 billion in market cap that although operates nationwide has never had their HQ in Boston. Why would they? Yes it is easy to take the train and get to places but that comes to a higher cost. Is it really asking too much for potential employees to drive? Making something easier for people to do ultimately can lower the quality. Digital photography didn't exactly make for better photos when someone could easily delete the bad ones etc.

Trends can be towards cities but Boston is not the only city in the state. More importantly cities is just a term for how the local government is incorporated. There are cities in Texas with 300 people.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Berkshires are NY extension. Hampden is CT extension.

[RiverBird]

Originally Posted by snatale1

Berkshire, Hampshire and Franklin County are just as much part of MA as Suffolk, Middlesex and Norfolk are. The problem is Boston should be where Worcester is, and not way in the corner. As it's been said, it's the isolation.

Isolation??? Springfield is a mere 90 miles from Boston. In the Midwest, you travel 180 mi round trip to attend an event. Here Boston to Spfld is like traveling to Siberia.

[Dave120]

Originally Posted by mdovell

"The problem is Boston should be where Worcester is, and not way in the corner. "

When it comes down to it the capital could easily be moved to another part of the state. It does not make logical sense from a cost perspective to put everything in Boston.

Businesses and government can lower expenses by relocating to more rural areas. I worked for a company now worth over 2 billion in market cap that although operates nationwide has never had their HQ in Boston. Why would they? Yes it is easy to take the train and get to places but that comes to a higher cost. Is it really asking too much for potential employees to drive? Making something easier for people to do ultimately can lower the quality. Digital photography didn't exactly make for better photos when someone could easily delete the bad ones etc.

Trends can be towards cities but Boston is not the only city in the state. More importantly cities is just a term for how the local government is incorporated. There are cities in Texas with 300 people.

I agree with the idea of moving the capitol to another city, either Worcester or Springfield; I realize it'll never happen at this point, but I think that would be the ideal situation. Boston is (obviously) the most economically important city in the state and doesn't need the title, which I think would be fitting and beneficial for Worcester or Springfield, and in turn for the entire state. I think it would lend some balance to the state government and economy (while not taking anything away from Boston), and as you mention, lower some expenses as well. Most of the biggest, economically important states (New York, California, Texas) have their structure set up this way; Massachusetts is one of the few states that doesn't, and I don't think it's ideal.

[FCMA]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Berkshires are NY extension. Hampden is CT extension.

And Franklin is just a VT extension, obviously. Let's just give our western counties to other states. But what to do with Hampshire? Build a bridge over the Quabbin to connect it to the rest of MA and keep it? Independent nation-state / People's Republic? It doesn't abut another state to give it away to. Hmm.