Post-1900: Improve Boston

First off, Boston is doing very well these days, for the most part. Anchored by the tech, education, medical, and financial sectors, it has a very skilled and diversified economy.

But hell, if we can spend pages discussing how the US could do better than historically, why not one of its more resilient and historic cities?

I’ll start with a simple suggestion: The North South Rail Link. Basically, for over a century (with a damnably long haitus in the middle), Boston has toyed woth the idea of connecting its two disconnected commuter rail lines, like many other cities around the world have. The experience in other cities doing this has almost always been very positive, but Boston, in our history, has become very skittish about big projects after the Big Dig went far less smoothly than it should have.

However, the idea originally was proposed in 1910, when it would have been much easier to do. So, lets say the political opposition is overcome, and the project gets completed (likely during WW1). As an added bonus, the plan was to electrify the passenger rail system (needed for the tunnel), which would have been another boost. This means that, when Boston develops its commuter rail system in the 60s-80s (assuming it still consolidates things), the transit system has a compact, contiguous, and all-electric system. This allows for performance more like rapid transit systems, and allows the rail system to do double duty as an express system for the subway (Boston’s subway is fantastic... by US standards).

This connection allows the surrounding towns to cope much better with the transitioning economy, and knits them together better.

With its old suburbs more closely knit, Boston might not take a distant second to Silicon valley during the 80s - its major tech firms are located out in the beltway, far less conducive to collaboration than the city core. Second place is still nothing to sneeze at, but its still second place. With rapid access to and from the major universities, the textch sector becomes even more dynamic.

So, there’s my first proposal. Any other suggestions?
 
First off, Boston is doing very well these days, for the most part. Anchored by the tech, education, medical, and financial sectors, it has a very skilled and diversified economy.

And annoyingly growing presence of the homeless on the streets. :teary:

Actually, a big part of what you described (except for the medical and perhaps financial) is not in Boston. It is either around 128 - 495 belt(s) or in Cambridge (MIT, Harvard and a lot of biotech and high tech companies).

Big part of the official Boston are areas which are not too well-off (like Roxbury).

I’ll start with a simple suggestion: The North South Rail Link. Basically, for over a century (with a damnably long haitus in the middle), Boston has toyed woth the idea of connecting its two disconnected commuter rail lines, like many other cities around the world have. The experience in other cities doing this has almost always been very positive, but Boston, in our history, has become very skittish about big projects after the Big Dig went far less smoothly than it should have.

To start from the end, for the fraction of money spent on the Big Dig (tunnel 1.5 miles long with a price tag $24.3B) the Swiss built a vary long tunnel under the Alps and the Russians built a bridge to the Crimean peninsula. Then, the obvious questions are (a) how and (b) why?

"How" in the terms of geography is quite difficult because, short of building one more tunnel under the center of Boston, you can't connect North and South station without cutting through the said center causing the same traffic problems which the Big Dig was supposed to solve (to be fair, things got better for those going through the Boston or even trying to get to Boston by car). Adding to this consideration a fact that MA "authorities" are very good in wasting the taxpayers' money, this would be one more multi-year extremely expensive project that would, while in the process, make traffic in Boston even worse than it is now. FYI, MA does not have spare money to waste and as far as MBTA (transportation authority) is involved, we don't even have money to support it properly: everything is consumed by the union's benefits.

"Why" should be obvious: how many people are going by train through Boston? As far as the working people are involved, this does not make too much sense because the jobs are either in the Boston or around it.


However, the idea originally was proposed in 1910, when it would have been much easier to do. So, lets say the political opposition is overcome, and the project gets completed (likely during WW1). As an added bonus, the plan was to electrify the passenger rail system (needed for the tunnel), which would have been another boost. This means that, when Boston develops its commuter rail system in the 60s-80s (assuming it still consolidates things), the transit system has a compact, contiguous, and all-electric system. This allows for performance more like rapid transit systems, and allows the rail system to do double duty as an express system for the subway (Boston’s subway is fantastic... by US standards).

I like your last comment about the Boston subway and a caveat (BTW, we don't have a "subway", it is "T"). :)

In a reality, it is quite terrible. At least the green and blue lines are getting out of order on a regular basis (which is especially nice when the weather is extremely cold or extremely hot). The intervals between the trains are too big even during the rush hours, the whole schema is, shall we say, not the best imaginable.

Building tunnel under Boston during WWI possible could be less expensive (but I'm not sure that degree of corruption was lesser at that time) and, to be fair, it is not an easy task. Most of the area you are talking about is artificially created (one can look at the map circa American Revolution below to see the initial configuration of the coastline) and lacking the "structure" of a natural soil, which makes tunnel works quite difficult.

300px-Siege_of_Boston.Dean.USMA.edu.history.gif


This connection allows the surrounding towns to cope much better with the transitioning economy, and knits them together better.

Well, connection with Cambridge has nothing to do with the railroad and for the rest, see above about route 128.


With its old suburbs more closely knit, Boston might not take a distant second to Silicon valley during the 80s - its major tech firms are located out in the beltway, far less conducive to collaboration than the city core. Second place is still nothing to sneeze at, but its still second place. With rapid access to and from the major universities, the textch sector becomes even more dynamic.

Most of these old suburbs are part of today's Boston. It works as following: when one of these cities is getting bankrupt it is being incorporated into Boston (being capital of the state Boston has an ability to squeeze the rest of the state). The high tech is, as you said, either in the beltway or in Cambridge. Placing it into Boston would create a complete nightmare of the traffic because most of the people working in these companies also live along the same beltway. Rapid access between the companies and universities is rather irrelevant: the students will not remain in the campuses after they graduated and start working.

So, there’s my first proposal. Any other suggestions?

Yes. Don't try to improve anything in MA: things are already lousy enough. :mad:
 
@alexmilman Of course I mean the Boston metro region. Where my ancestors decided to draw their lines has little nearing on urban growth patterns.

As for the NSRL, I could write pages on it, but there are loads of resources on why it would generally be a good idea to build (and the big dig was structured specifically to leave room for it), and it would have been a tricial engineering matter to cut and cover a tunnel in 1910.

The big takeway is that, even if everyone is still just commuting into the city on the commuter rail, linking the two terminal stations gives you a much more efficient way to get the trains out of the way after unloading: just run them through. Beyond that, it offers fewer seat rides into the city to a much wider range of the population. Trying to get anywhere but a location right near ‘your’ terminal station is a complete pain on the neck.
 
@alexmilman Of course I mean the Boston metro region. Where my ancestors decided to draw their lines has little nearing on urban growth patterns.

As for the NSRL, I could write pages on it, but there are loads of resources on why it would generally be a good idea to build (and the big dig was structured specifically to leave room for it), and it would have been a tricial engineering matter to cut and cover a tunnel in 1910.

The big takeway is that, even if everyone is still just commuting into the city on the commuter rail, linking the two terminal stations gives you a much more efficient way to get the trains out of the way after unloading: just run them through. Beyond that, it offers fewer seat rides into the city to a much wider range of the population. Trying to get anywhere but a location right near ‘your’ terminal station is a complete pain on the neck.

It could be a good idea in 1910 before the suburban sprawl and before everybody got a car but now it is pretty much a waste of everybody's money (parking, ticket, then T to get anywhere in the city) and not too many people are working on the other side of Boston, anyway so the transit through Boston is not something desperately needed. Or even using the rail to get into Boston. Even driving to the nearest T station is more practical: the tickets are cheaper (but not cheap), the trains are going more often and it is easier to get somewhere even if you need to switch the lines. A single South-North railroad connection would create more problems than it'll solve without adding too much to the conveniences of getting anywhere inside Boston.
 
It could be a good idea in 1910 before the suburban sprawl and before everybody got a car but now it is pretty much a waste of everybody's money (parking, ticket, then T to get anywhere in the city) and not too many people are working on the other side of Boston, anyway so the transit through Boston is not something desperately needed. Or even using the rail to get into Boston. Even driving to the nearest T station is more practical: the tickets are cheaper (but not cheap), the trains are going more often and it is easier to get somewhere even if you need to switch the lines. A single South-North railroad connection would create more problems than it'll solve without adding too much to the conveniences of getting anywhere inside Boston.

Prove it.
 
Prove it.
Why should I be proving what is obvious? In its present state MA can't handle any project efficiently and there is no serious issue with the people working on a wrong side of Boston.

Just out of a pure curiosity, what is your personal experience with the commute in the area?
 
Why should I be proving what is obvious? In its present state MA can't handle any project efficiently and there is no serious issue with the people working on a wrong side of Boston.

Just out of a pure curiosity, what is your personal experience with the commute in the area?

The thing is, I’m proposing an alternate history in which this project was undertaken when it was first proposed, a century ago. A project that was never completed because of railroad monopoly fears.

Meanwhile, you’re objecting to it on grounds nased entirely on the circumstances on the ground today. Anyway, here’s some good reading material on the current proposal:
http://www.northsouthraillink.org/

The only real dispute is the cost figure, with various studies reporting a variety of figures. The benefits are pretty well accepted.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, I’m proposing an alternate history in which this project was undertaken when it was first proposed, a century ago. A project that was never completed because of railroad monopoly fears.

But you proceeded projecting the benefits for today's Boston. AFAIK, there was not too much of a high tech in 1910 (and no Silicon Valley in CA, AFAIK), no Route 128, no suburban sprawl, no present situation with the personal cars, etc. Even Boston itself was quite different geographically and, AFAIK, ethnically. So how are you going to figure out the modern benefits unless you have a clear personal knowledge of what are Boston and Greater Boston now? I asked rather simple question about your experience in that specific area but you did not answer. If you know these things 1st hand, then we can have a meaningful discussion on how that railroad connection may or may not impact the present situation.

Regarding the modern "proposal" (you jumped to it), sorry but Harvard Kennedy School is a la-la land: they'd not be responsible for any aspect of the project and quite free to fantasize whatever they want. Basically, this is what they are supposed to do, providing education in the areas of public administration.

As for the cost, everybody who lives in MA and paying attention knows how well the time and cost estimates worked for Big Dig. Fortunately, the whole thing is slightly too crazy even for our Legislature and our beloved Charley Baker: even they understand that we have no money. We have no money even to pay benefits to the existing MBTA employees.
 
I extrapolated that Boston would still be a hub for high tech industries in the 70s onward. Thats not unrealistic, nor is it unrealistic to extrapolate that the surrounding areas will develop.

If your ‘simple question’ is in reference to my personal commute, I fail to see how that is relevant, and I prefer not to discuss my daily routine to make a point about alternate history. Suffice to say, I live in the Boston area, have for the better part of two decades, and commute into Boston.
 
I extrapolated that Boston would still be a hub for high tech industries in the 70s onward. Thats not unrealistic, nor is it unrealistic to extrapolate that the surrounding areas will develop.

Boston itself (as a city of Boston) is not a high tech hub. The Greater Boston is with most of high tech located either in Cambridge or along 128. In other words, the railroad going through Boston is rather irrelevant.

If your ‘simple question’ is in reference to my personal commute, I fail to see how that is relevant, and I prefer not to discuss my daily routine to make a point about alternate history. Suffice to say, I live in the Boston area, have for the better part of two decades, and commute into Boston.

That's fine, I did not ask for any details. So least each of us can talk from the personal experience and not an abstract knowledge. I'm there for almost 3 decades and experienced pretty much all types of directions except going from North Shore to the South Shore.
 
Top