I’m often asked, not in so many words, “Why so hostile towards Charlie Baker [or Bob DeLeo]? I’m a liberal, and he’s not so bad.” And Dems this past weekend at the convention surely were not eager to take him on.
Well, that’s true, he’s not so bad, by certain standards. He’s taken an executive interest in nuts and bolts that his predecessor failed to take. One should appreciate that.
But he is not trying to move the sloth and inertia of our political culture, as Gov. Patrick — for all his flaws — surely did. Again and again, we see the need for big vision and major investment … and Baker and DeLeo pretty much spit the bit every time.
The Dukakis Center at Northeastern U has released even yet still another report on the inadequacy of our infrastructure to our current and future needs:
Between 2010 and 2030 the population of Greater Boston is expected to grow by 10.5 percent. In that same period, a sizable jump in workers between the ages of 25 and 44 is expected — along with a much bigger jump in people over the age of 64.
An economic report released Tuesday by researchers at Northeastern University concludes this area will require some major infrastructure improvements to support that population.
via Report Says Major Infrastructure Fixes Needed To Support Greater Boston Population Growth | WBUR.
Investments and accompanying contracting oversight are needed for the MBTA, highways, energy, and — critically — climate change adaptation and mitigation, for rising sea levels and storm surges. We dodged a bullet with Superstorm Sandy a few years ago — New York City wasn’t so lucky.
Of course, this will require money — as well as a reinvention of our utterly broken contracting system, a problem not unique to MA.
From the Executive Summary:
Between 2010 and 2030, we project that the population in the five counties of Greater Boston will have grown by nearly 430,000, or 10.5 percent. Where will they live? How will they get to and from work, school, and other essential destinations? Will their communities be outfitted with appropriate levels and types of transportation, energy, water and sewage capacity, recycling and waste facilities, and open and conservation land to suit their environmental and economic needs, ensuring a growing and prosperous economy? Through careful longitudinal tracking of multiple systems and demographic shifts across many jurisdictions, we hope to provide resources essential to the sort of state-of-the-art performance-based planning that will be imperative in the years ahead. Based on our projections, the conclusion is pretty straightforward. As a region we must find ways to expand our infrastructure, enhance the efficiency with which we use it, and find ways to conserve energy, water, and open space in order to accommodate the population growth and expanded economic output we project through 2030. The complexity lies in determining which course to take and ultimately how to pay for it.
Well sure! Let’s all put our heads together and figure that one out …
To be blunt: There is absolutely no ambition, no intention, no vision, no proposal, no agenda, from either our Governor or Speaker, for providing the necessities of our region going forward. None. They’re just not going to do it.
This is not an abstraction. This means that your commute is going to suck, forever. See what’s happening with Washington DC’s subways for a glimpse of the future.
Oh, and our city will be flooded.
With set of political assumptions that hold sway on Beacon Hill, we’re just paddling with one oar. We will continue to be crippled by a political culture of neglect. We’ve been warned ad nauseum about the effects of inaction; we’re living with the consequences every single day.
This is why I think there’s a political opening vs. Baker, and more broadly against a political culture of austerity, denial, and short-term thinking.
All kidding aside, I’m increasingly dubious that it makes sense to make a major (as in 100-year) investment in MBTA infrastructure given the impact of climate change that is already nearly certain.
As bad as the Metro situation is, the DC area is not built on the coast of the Atlantic ocean.
My read of the science is that in the 50 year time frame, we face at least storm surges — if not steady-state sea levels — that will flood ALL the current underground tunnels.
All kidding aside, it may already be too late. Perhaps Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo have access to projections like this that they prefer not to share.
Pew Charitable recently released a study looking at this from the point of view of those states which are losing workforce… and thus jobs It’s an interesting read. The implication here (since they note that Massachusetts has a declining birthrate) is the rise in population will be, more or less, about migration from other states (Maine and Vermont in particular are singled out).
The extent to which jobs grow the population or the population grows the jobs is debated, but the correlation betwixt and between the size/growth rate of the population and economic growth is strong in any event.
Another corollary is the affinity for automobiles. When I was growing up, amongst me and all my friends, the desire to own a car was all-consuming. I don’t think that holds true for todays up-n-comers… Any infrastructure improvements will need to take this into account, also
I’m in my late 30s. I ditched my car at 21 and have no desire to get another one all these years later.
I bring you greetings from a county that is NOT one of the 5 of greater Boston. We are there already. And if a silver tsunami of old age is approaching the Commonwealth, we are standing on that beach now looking at the wave hitting the shore.
If you were to factor out the (largely) transient college population in MA, our median age would already jump by a couple of years. But those older people are more likely to stay, and their infrastructure needs are different than those of the up-and-comers. Still, they will need the same sort of non-car transport as the Millennials for different reasons, like deafness, blindness, etc. So for once, infrastructure needs may overlap, which will help with prioritization.
BTW – the jobs will be in health care, home services, etc.
I reject the assertion that the college population is largely transient: This is akin to saying no restaurant can succeed because no individual patrons are transient.
Individuals are transient, but the population remains: a healthy, vibrant college will renew that population making it effectively permanent even as some individual members don’t remain.
porc: every once in a while you add this “factor out the college population” line. It’s foolish.
I’m quite certain that Harvard, MIT, BU, BC, NE’ern, and a number of the small colleges will exist long after the Prudential Building or the JFK Federal Building. Universities are hundreds-years institutions. They’re amongst the least transient things in our society.
…who are often from out of state, then move elsewhere, possibly back to state of origin, when finished with school.
Not individually, but demographically. The ever-graying Boomer population will die (much to their chagrin). If we’re planning for something, that’s a 10- or 20-year window, so non-Boston counties should be looking a little further down the road, IMO.
I’d love to see cities outside of greater Boston figure out how to offer Boston amenities (public transit, diverse population, attractive residential/commercial mix) at far less than the cost you get gouged for in Boston. That’s the sweet spot for Lowell, New Bedford, Lynn, Worcester, Springfield, etc. If greater Boston can’t/won’t get its act in gear, smaller urbs should beat it to the punch in terms of building out working cities.
To libertarians, taxes are theft. To Republicans, taxes are an evil that must be lowered, and then lowered again, then lowered. To Democrats, taxes are a necessary evil….but still evil. We even celebrate a “holiday” from evil taxes in Massachusetts, approved by our Democratic legislators.
You stop the money flowing into infrastructure, you call anything that benefits us instead of me “socialism” with a scowl, even from Democrats, and here we are.
Oh, it’s even worse elsewhere. In Oregon, where they continually refuse to raise taxes, there are only six deputies in Josephine County and resources are so sparse that a woman was raped last year after an emergency dispatcher told her four times over the phone there was no one to help her.
In total, one in nine of the nation’s bridges are rated as structurally deficient, while the average age of the nation’s 607,380 bridges is currently 42 years.
Interesting…..42 years, about the same length of time that labor has gone without a raise and while the .1% has continued to prosper.
And my Democratic pals tell me to be patient, to settle for slow, gradual change, to embrace the status quo and to think anything different is a theory that will never ever happen…..
I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it, if it’s still standing…
The need for bridge repair will be diminished since currently bridges need to withstand truck traffic. By then goods will be delivered by industrial strength drones, less traffic on small New England roads, one-way streets are no problem, etc. The commute will be easier without dodging trucks, but you don’t need to pay attention because you’re staring at your computer screen in your google car not the road.
Perhaps, so long as don’t mind being on a constant lookout for low-flying drones.
I confess I’m struggling with the physics of this. The reason that truck traffic destroys bridges is that trucks are loaded with freight, and the energy associated with those trucks is proportional to the mass of those trucks.
It takes more energy to keep several tons of freight in the air than it does to move that freight on wheels (especially steel wheels on steel rails). It takes more energy to start and stop that drone, and WAY more energy to lift it off the ground and then keep it in the air. That’s why air freight is so much more expensive than ground freight.
The energy to power those “industrial strength” drones has to come from somewhere. They’re going to need either very powerful and very light batteries that don’t exist today or they’re going to need fuel and engines.
It seems to me that if we are unable to manage the complexity of a two-dimensional highway infrastructure, we will jump from the frying pan into the fire by “solving” that problem through the creation of a three-dimensional infrastructure.
It will be more affordable — and more likely to work — by fixing the bridges, and by moving more freight traffic to rail. The “last mile” problem is solved even today by using multi-modal containers for freight.
Finally, the first commercial use of driverless vehicles is for trucks. Just saying.
drone corridors and the problem becomes “last block” not “last mile”. The drones themselves are battery powered with solar charged batteries. (Even if they’re fuel and engines they’ll be more efficient, they go as the crow flies) Smaller packets will be delivered because “retail” stores will not be the same.
We won’t need people stocking shelves (future unemployment problems) because “stores” will be where you go to see a product, try it, try it on and order.(No shoplifting) You don’t bring it home from the store, it’s delivered (maybe before you get home). Bulk delivery will be by rail to regional hubs.
If you think about it we really handle the two dimensional system fairly well. three dimensions will make it easier. I agree on driverless trucks, on specific truck roads (like they’re building for the seaport terminal in Boston).
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
And so on,,,