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.
Oh man, the Greenbush Line. I remember the outcry when it was proposed. I'm glad they dug it below grade to preserve the integrity of downtown Hingham. It's seeing pretty high ridership now though.
I do understand the fear of development. It's an attitude all over suburban and rural Massachusetts. It's just that the laws and regulations we have in place only make the problem worse (by spreading lower density growth over a greater area).
Right now, Easton and parts of Stoughton are adamantly opposed to the Fall River/ New Bedford Rail project (for reasons beyond the perfectly understandable financial requirement). They are using the Hockocmock Swamp (which has a highway, an existing rail bed which will be utilized, and 5 major roads traversing it already) as a reason to oppose; but many have expressed concern about potential growth and icnreases in crime, etc. I understand and sympathize with many of these folks, but by NOT allowing the rail to go through, they're inadvertantly promoting negative, uncontrolled sprawl.
Mass transit does two things. It provides a means for people who already live in the area to commute without a car and it provides a planned out area for new development (called Transit Oriented Development) which has been effective in many places including right here in Massachusetts.
The Greenbush line was not only a political fight that went on way too long, it is the worst offender in terms of not running often enough. I'm sure each train is packed, because you have to wait forever for the next one. I grew up with the Lowell line, which offered my dad a 15 minute ride to North Station from our stations (Wedgemere and then West Medford when we decamped to Arlington) and runs 4 trains between 8:25 and 9:30 AM. My mother used to drop him off in West Medford because the train out of Belmont ran one over 45-60 minutes.
My girlfriend, whose mother has moved down near the Cape, used to spend a lot of time in Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield. She would like to move down to that area eventually. Since my work life will likely be tied to the city, and I like the city, I am adamantly opposed because the Greenbush schedule is ridiculously limited (plus it's 45 mins to Cohasset and beyond), and I have no desire to drive 25 minutes just to get to the Route 3 parking lot. The only possibly tolerable option down there is the Hingham ferry.
For a while I had to commute to New York from Pelham, NY, in Westchester County. From a little after 6 AM straight through a little after 9, they ran trains at most 20 minutes apart, if not more often than that. Pretty much the same thing going home. But a train that leaves South Station at 6:38 and then not again until 8:25 is not one I'm going to rely on. So I won't be buying along the Greenbush line any time soon.
Great discussion y'all! I sort of agree with the consensus on sprawl in eastern Mass except to say that the new development comes on top of various historical layers. It's not as though the current building in Mass is on a blank slate as it so often is elsewhere. So people don't see it as sprawl, and with all the conservation areas and state parks around, they're more likely to notice how close you are in Boston to green open spaces as compared to, say, NYC or LA. And it's true. But the sprawl is true too, also the resistance of towns to denser forms of growth. The political system in New England of towns and strong local control makes a difference--where you have strong county government, like in Maryland, or an inexplicable system of counties and enormous towns, as on Long Island (where Oyster Bay town has 350,000 residents and Hempstead town has over 700,000) you have a system where developers and public officials can make mutually rewarding deals that result in mega-developments that no New England town meeting would ever be likely to approve--such as Bethesda, MD, which is itself not a political entity at all; or Tysons Corner, Va. These things are pretty good from a high-density, sprawl-avoidance point of view, but pretty soulless at the same time. The town governance in N.E. makes tends toward tradition and conservatism, which in real estate development translates into lots of conservation land and conservation restrictions, and scattered, small-scale but large-lot subdivisions. Those aren't bad things in themselves but when repeated from one town to another they add up to a whole lot of very scattered, spread-out, low-density development. And invisible too as much of it is hidden by the omnipresent woods.
The government, in a more indirect way, does and has said where people will live for as long as there's been a USA. The government granted huge tracts of the best land to railroads in the 1800s and people moved west to those areas because they had access to back east, for the people and the crops or products they wanted to sell back to the eastern market.
Starting particularly in the 1950s, the whole idea of suburbia that is now entrenched in the American mind only became possible because government invested massive sums in building roads, specifically the interstate system, to make it possible for people to get to these far-flung locales without having to take a road like Route 117 the whole way from Leominster to Waltham.
Developers would not have built, and people would not have bought, suburban houses with big lots if there had not been the government-built roads to get there, a public policy of taxing gasoline much less here than in other countries, and a public policy allowing mortgage interest to be deducted from taxable income. None of these things was organic or inevitable. Outside the USA there was more transit-centered development and people live closer to the center of the cities, and in somewhat smaller homes, because that is what was available.
Government policies have a lot to do with what people can afford and what works for them. If areas near train stations are rezoned for mixed use with high-density residential buildings, a large investment is made in the train system, less is spent on new roads, the gas tax is increased significantly, and credits are given for those who take the train or live in high-density places, people will make the decision to move to high-density places. And all of that will be no different than people moving to suburbia because a series of policies made that affordable and practical. Government policies have always been the backdrop to the decisions made by market actors, as have extrinsic factors like the rise in energy prices the last few years.
Good post. I understand what your saying, but I'm just saying that ultimately it is the decision of each individual person where they want to live (suburb, urban, rural, etc.). Affordability and other conditions are definitely a key aspect of all this also. Railroads were the main source of transportation back in the day, now of course it is the automobile. Seeing that the roads are maintained by the government, the roads and highways definitely have an impact on affordability and access. The market still determined what people do like when gas prices went up and more people started commuting by public transporation or carpooling. With lower real estate values you may see more people move closer to their jobs if they can.
I'm someone who loves my vehicle and likes to drive almost anywhere, so although I appreciate public transporation if Boston were more parking friendly I would drive in all the time. I end up taking public transportation or cabs into Boston many times because it isn't that car friendly. Now, I go to other cities down south and have no problems driving around and parking, and the demand for trains or subways isn't quite there.
There still has to be a demand for something, unless we want a bridge to nowhere or in this case, a mbta stop to nowhere. I agree the government's policies have an effect on transportation and where people live. Just look at a lot of MA's policies which have forced people and businesses out of this state and they moved to other less expensive states.
I heard a rumor that some guys pool together and commute in one of their boats from Marshfield to Boston every day!
When we lived in Cohasset my husband *loved* taking the ferry from Hingham to Boston. It's a fantastic way to commute, extremely civilized, esp. if you love the water. All the ferry riders are anxious that once the Greenbush line is in, the ferry will be phased out.
Most people who live down there have no problem with the long commutes because they love the beauty of the area so much. If you're really a city person it's def. not for you.
I hope the Fall River/New Bedford project goes along more smoothly than Greenbush.
And yes, it was nice that Hingham's village was preserved. But I like it when the train stations are in the actual village downtown instead of outside of it.
But you know, I'm from NJ and everything there changes constantly, so I've gotten used to everything being turned upside down every few years. It's not the case here.
I'm someone who loves my vehicle and likes to drive almost anywhere, so although I appreciate public transporation if Boston were more parking friendly I would drive in all the time. I end up taking public transportation or cabs into Boston many times because it isn't that car friendly. Now, I go to other cities down south and have no problems driving around and parking, and the demand for trains or subways isn't quite there.
There still has to be a demand for something, unless we want a bridge to nowhere or in this case, a mbta stop to nowhere. I agree the government's policies have an effect on transportation and where people live. Just look at a lot of MA's policies which have forced people and businesses out of this state and they moved to other less expensive states.
Someone, Dick Armey I think, suggested a while back in a political context that Boston isn't really "America." Of course that's silly, but there is a real difference between a small number of high-density (and, interestingly enough, high income and cost of living) cities and the "rest of the country." The development patterns in suburban and rural Mass., and in all those other "cities" like Charlotte and Houston, have resulted from car-friendly public policies. A lot of Americans like their cars. I remember Al Gore wanted to make mass transit a campaign theme in 2000 and there was a 1999 story in the Philly Inquirer that mentioned a suburbanite who spent 90 minutes in traffic to reach his job in central Philly while the train would have taken under 30. He said he didn't like having to sit near strangers and listen to his music only on headphones.
Frankly, none of this is sustainable. The US is only 5% (and shrinking) of the world population but uses about a quarter (and growing) of its energy. In recent years other countries, including very populous India, China, and Brazil, have industrialized and had advances in material living standards and energy consumption. The trend is toward more leveling of such standards. At the same time the planet is undergoing major environmental strain and would be tapped out in 10 years if everyone consumed energy like the US.
Putting aside the sociological consequences of this car culture (which I think are more detrimental than many realize), we better get to work on coming up with some alternative fuel sources that would allow us to continue with our current lifestyle while simultaneously allowing for environmental limitations and the desire on the part of the other 80% of the world's people to have heat, running water, and transportation as well.
You mentioned that it's no big deal these days to drive 30 miles to work, but in many places that's becoming less and less true because of traffic. When it takes 90 minutes to go your 30 miles, there are people saying they've had enough of that lifestyle and they'd rather take the train or move closer. I think environmental realities will force a lot more of that in the decades to come.
Most people who live down there have no problem with the long commutes because they love the beauty of the area so much. If you're really a city person it's def. not for you.
I guess there are people everywhere who have no problem with long commutes, but I am definitely not one of them. The beauty of the area doesn't do much for me if I'm on the way to work at 7 AM and not getting home until after 8 PM anyway. I can (and do) go down there from closer to Boston for a Cohasset fix on the weekend. Time is at such a premium, I can't imagine losing another hour-plus of every workday to the commute. I like the ferry, but it might be phased out one day and from a couple of towns away it takes too long just to get to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clevedark
And yes, it was nice that Hingham's village was preserved. But I like it when the train stations are in the actual village downtown instead of outside of it.
Totally agree. A nice little train station can be (though it is not always in practice) a charming addition to a village center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clevedark
But you know, I'm from NJ and everything there changes constantly, so I've gotten used to everything being turned upside down every few years. It's not the case here.
There's been a lot of change here over the years as suburbia has pushed ever outward, but I'm amazed at how overrun with traffic NJ has gotten. My sister lives in central NJ and it used to be pastoral, now it's a major production to go just about anywhere.
Oh I totally agree about NJ being overrun with traffic. It's shocking. The big mapmakers say that most of North Jersey is the density of Queens. My MIL lives in Monmouth County, at the beach. When we lived in Manhattan we'd go down and be like, ahh, paradise!
Now when we go there I'm thinking WTF is this??? Out in the middle of nowhere in a traffic jam? (Meaning 60 miles from NYC.) And we're talking an area where many lots are 1/4 acre and under, not the typical definition of sprawl.
Yes, the traffic is there because there isn't the kind of public transportation available that a lot of people want to use. I think the key to solving this problem would be to SOMEHOW make it cool to ride buses. But that will be hard. A lot of people think buses are low class and stay off them at all costs. Plus it makes your trip insanely long.
So who will be building all this for, since in 30 years the large numbers of baby boomers will be gone, our economy will shrink, vacancy rates will go up.
Now when we go there I'm thinking WTF is this??? Out in the middle of nowhere in a traffic jam? (Meaning 60 miles from NYC.) And we're talking an area where many lots are 1/4 acre and under, not the typical definition of sprawl.
Yes, the traffic is there because there isn't the kind of public transportation available that a lot of people want to use. I think the key to solving this problem would be to SOMEHOW make it cool to ride buses. But that will be hard. A lot of people think buses are low class and stay off them at all costs. Plus it makes your trip insanely long.
It's unreal. My sister is in northern Edison and every time I go there it takes like 35 minutes from the highway to her house because it's jammed at every single traffic light.
There is definitely a bus stigma in the suburbs there, but I think the fact that the bus would have to stop at every single strip mall and it would take forever is the big problem. We can take some of the cars off the road by having a better train network for trips between bigger destinations and creating office hubs with transit hubs built in, like La Defense outside Paris, and encouraging companies to locate there instead of in all these separate buildings with individual parking lots. We would basically have to retrofit the entire US suburban landscape.
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.
