Additional lane on the Southeast Expressway

[Semass]

To kind of attempt at bringing us full circle here...

In the future, we should be able to restore rail to the Cape. As part of dealing with the SE expressway, Old Colony Bottleneck, and rebannering 93 to the Sagamore, we should take a serious look at median-running HSR down that corridor. My belief is that running any HSR with 2-per-hour or better headways that doesn't butcher local service is going to need to be pulled off of the local tracks. (This is part of my interest in rehabbing the Interstate system - wider medians can eventually be punched out and a ROW established where local ROWs are too twisted or too congested for HSR service.)

HSR from BOS to the Cape - and then, from the Cape to PVD and Hartford along future I-82 - is desirable, and local commuter service extended into the Cape from the Old Colony Lines could/should/would follow.

Hourly 4x4 service - 4 trains North, 4 trains 'South' (East) - out of Middleboro/Lakeville, the future Cape Cod line. I'm not sure about Plymouth/Kingston and whether or not it is possible to run that ROW out to Hyannis - or, failing that, Woods Hole - but that'd be something else to look at.

A rising tide lifts all boats, you see, and making Hyannis a network hub - that helps everyone.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but this ought to go into the crazy transit pitch thread. Kingston MBTA to the canal is almost 19 miles of all new infrastructure. Canal to Hyannis is now really beat up track for dinner trains but I concede that the right-of-way exists - unlike the Woods Hole where it is now a bike path. There would also need to be a new passage over or under the canal. What I am saying is that the price for this would make South Coast Rail look like a paragon of value at $1.3B +.

The biggest problem of all of this is there is no need save for a few weekends per year. As someone who crosses those bridges way too many times, there is usually pretty clear sailing. For 6 months of the year, there are no cars on the road but you would still need to support that infrastructure. HSR here is a solution in need of a problem. 4x/hour trains is more seats then there are cars on the highway. At least SCR proposes to serve a population exceeding 250,000 in FR, NB, and Taunton.

Rail to the Cape is fine: go thru Middleboro only. Everything is there, albeit slow. Proposals exist to connect and upgrade but again, demand may not exist.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but this ought to go into the crazy transit pitch thread. Kingston MBTA to the canal is almost 19 miles of all new infrastructure. Canal to Hyannis is now really beat up track for dinner trains but I concede that the right-of-way exists - unlike the Woods Hole where it is now a bike path. There would also need to be a new passage over or under the canal. What I am saying is that the price for this would make South Coast Rail look like a paragon of value at $1.3B +.

The biggest problem of all of this is there is no need save for a few weekends per year. As someone who crosses those bridges way too many times, there is usually pretty clear sailing. For 6 months of the year, there are no cars on the road but you would still need to support that infrastructure. HSR here is a solution in need of a problem. 4x/hour trains is more seats then there are cars on the highway. At least SCR proposes to serve a population exceeding 250,000 in FR, NB, and Taunton.

Rail to the Cape is fine: go thru Middleboro only. Everything is there, albeit slow. Proposals exist to connect and upgrade but again, demand may not exist.

I'm anticipating and accounting for an upswing in demand associated with an ever rising population plus future Cape developments making it a destination. And you're right, the price tag is massive - but I'm not saying 'start tomorrow.' I want this at any point in the future, and the passage of time is the number one cost reducer around. Who knows how much this will cost in 20, 30, 40, 50 years? Probably (adjusting for inflation) much less than it does today.

4x4 is crazy now, but not so much in 2075 which is when we could reasonably expect to have this in motion. I also think that future trains will be properly built for length adjustment, adding and deleting cars as necessary - so if the demand still isn't there for a full length (pop quiz: how many cars to the average Amtrak train?) train, we can run smaller trains. At 4x4 headways, it doesn't matter if the minimum-length train is full to capacity because another one will be right along in an average of 15 minutes.

As for bike paths... I don't have a particular problem with them. However, if a bike path is an obstacle to rail or rapid transit developments, I am ready, willing and more than happy to see it destroyed so the trains can run.

 

[ErnieAdams]

I'm anticipating and accounting for an upswing in demand associated with an ever rising population plus future Cape developments making it a destination. And you're right, the price tag is massive - but I'm not saying 'start tomorrow.' I want this at any point in the future, and the passage of time is the number one cost reducer around. Who knows how much this will cost in 20, 30, 40, 50 years? Probably (adjusting for inflation) much less than it does today.

4x4 is crazy now, but not so much in 2075 which is when we could reasonably expect to have this in motion. I also think that future trains will be properly built for length adjustment, adding and deleting cars as necessary - so if the demand still isn't there for a full length (pop quiz: how many cars to the average Amtrak train?) train, we can run smaller trains. At 4x4 headways, it doesn't matter if the minimum-length train is full to capacity because another one will be right along in an average of 15 minutes.

Sorry, the Cape Codders don't want it, and I'm confident to say that even 65 years down the road. HSR, more development, none of it. Residents have been known to gripe about the Cape Cod Commission, the county board that gets automatic review of any development over 10,000 square feet, but they haven't done away with it precisely because they buy into the quaint charm that they're selling to summer visitors. Just look up how they handled a recent proposal to build a four/five story Hilton Garden Inn on a derelict property across Route 28 from the Barnstable airport -- skewered it to pieces, and I think the plan now is more one-story retail that will be derelict again in 20 years.

(to keep on the thread topic at least a bit --) Even when Sagamore traffic backs up 15 miles for repairs, there's precious little support for a new highway bridge because of induced demand concerns. Most people are down there to get away from exactly what you're describing and are perfectly content to drive wherever they need to go, including off-Cape. (They almost have to, by the way. Barnstable is twelve square miles larger than Boston by land area, with 1/12 the people. Transit ain't gonna connect a place like that, period.) I think a comfortable majority of residents would shudder at the thought of putting up more interstate signs at the canal or even over it. Having 495-195 in Wareham is plenty close enough for them.

That's not to say that there aren't cheerleaders down there for Cape Cod Central to make some kind of connection at Middleboro. But very few Boston commuters would want to sign up for that two-plus-hour, two-seat ride, when they can do Hyannis-South Station in 90 minutes by car, maybe approaching two hours with traffic. It's always envisioned as an excursion train with a twist -- bring a few tourists down, maybe take a few day trips up. That's really it. This is an example of "if you build it, they won't come," and it's why the MBTA has always had the lowest possible priority assigned to the potential route.

Would HSR fix some of those problems and create demand? Sure, where wouldn't it? But with the passing of Senator Kennedy, there isn't a politician alive who could bring that expensive a project right to his doorstep.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Sorry, the Cape Codders don't want it, and I'm confident to say that even 65 years down the road. HSR, more development, none of it. Residents have been known to gripe about the Cape Cod Commission, the county board that gets automatic review of any development over 10,000 square feet, but they haven't done away with it precisely because they buy into the quaint charm that they're selling to summer visitors. Just look up how they handled a recent proposal to build a four/five story Hilton Garden Inn on a derelict property across Route 28 from the Barnstable airport -- skewered it to pieces, and I think the plan now is more one-story retail that will be derelict again in 20 years.

(to keep on the thread topic at least a bit --) Even when Sagamore traffic backs up 15 miles for repairs, there's precious little support for a new highway bridge because of induced demand concerns. Most people are down there to get away from exactly what you're describing and are perfectly content to drive wherever they need to go, including off-Cape. (They almost have to, by the way. Barnstable is twelve square miles larger than Boston by land area, with 1/12 the people. Transit ain't gonna connect a place like that, period.) I think a comfortable majority of residents would shudder at the thought of putting up more interstate signs at the canal or even over it. Having 495-195 in Wareham is plenty close enough for them.

That's not to say that there aren't cheerleaders down there for Cape Cod Central to make some kind of connection at Middleboro. But very few Boston commuters would want to sign up for that two-plus-hour, two-seat ride, when they can do Hyannis-South Station in 90 minutes by car, maybe approaching two hours with traffic. It's always envisioned as an excursion train with a twist -- bring a few tourists down, maybe take a few day trips up. That's really it. This is an example of "if you build it, they won't come," and it's why the MBTA has always had the lowest possible priority assigned to the potential route.

Would HSR fix some of those problems and create demand? Sure, where wouldn't it? But with the passing of Senator Kennedy, there isn't a politician alive who could bring that expensive a project right to his doorstep.

Progress cannot be stopped, only delayed.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Henry, et al -- don't confuse density with DENSITY:

What is the density of the "Alure of the Seas" even at 250,000 tons its overall density is less than that of sea water or even the fresh water in the Finish Fijord where she was built

However, you can be "take it to the bank" certain that there are many pieces of the Alure which would be on the bottom if they weren't a part of the whole ship

Similarly - as I ilustrated in many previous posts -- there are several parts of Lexington and many parts of Arlington (mostly near to Mass Ave) which possess densities comparable to Collige Corner or a number of points in Newton served by the Green Line

existing building on same side of Mass Ave on the other side of Waltham St.

indeed I'm willing to bet that there are places in Lexington denser than parts of West Roxbury (served by the Orange Line)

A 150,000 population Plymouth circa 2060 would certainly have parts that were transit eligible - and just like another Greater Boston local population and employment core such as Worcester -- there should be high frequency connectivity wih the Hub

I think you're starting to confuse "density" with "affluence". Plymouth's pop density is 608 per sq. mi. Yes, taken with the caveat that it's in one of the largest towns in the state by land (not-water) mass. But in the Top 100 municipalities in the state by population, only Dartmouth (350 per sq. mi), Middleborough (320), Wareham (470), Sandwich (480), Bourne (457), and Scituate (570) have lower population densities than Plymouth, which is the 19th largest municipality in the state by total population. Note the common location...in that grouping all but Dartmouth (which is nearby) and Scituate (which is not at all nearby) are physically connected to each other, so this is a bona fide density cavity in the state. That becomes more apparent when you start filling in the densities of the surrounding towns that didn't crack the Top 100 in population (the Lakevilles and Carvers and etc.). Barnstable at 45K population (vs. 56.4K Plymouth) /753 pop density/60 sq. mi. landmass (vs. 96.5 sq. mi. Plymouth) is the most regionally analogous town. Barnstable. The metropolis of Barnstable.

It has to TRIPLE in density to achieve the kind of claustrophobic urban feel of not-at-all-urban Lexington. Ain't gonna happen. Not only is the only way to add that much density in this lifetime a truly hellish suburban sprawl proposition the likes of which we probably don't want to consider...but it would have to buck the regional density cavity that has actively resisted adding density to that whole swath of Plymouth county. I would put my money on demographic trends persisting for multiple centuries over any boom that could be coming in this lifetime. If it's in a density cavity today, chances are 75 years from now it's still going to be in a relative density cavity. If postwar suburbanization didn't change the density relative to its surroundings, I'm not sure what is left out there in the future that would.

That doesn't mean it can't develop, but Barnstable-level density is the aspiration here. And that's not very urban at all. Even with Plymouth's more convenient highway access. Having a pretty, affluent, compact, walkable downtown to build around is nice. But it's stretching the definition of "urban" beyond recognition to lump in places like the centermost of downtown Plymouth that are one pinpoint of density in a density cavity miles wide. Connectivity to the next node of density is not practical from Plymouth without a car or commuter rail trip. You can't just go "square-hopping" from downtown Plymouth and go from someplace to someplace. You can--within reason--go square-hopping from downtown Lexington to neighboring points of density with a short bus trip or very brisk walk. And even that's not remotely as easy to do as in Medford because Lexington is NOT urban and dense, but some people do get by every single day doing just that.

Single- or limited-point small town density is worth investing in, because the alternative (sprawlsprawlsprawlsprawl...) is unsustainable. But it's not apples-apples with sewing an urban net together. There's no "net" to be found in the density cavity surrounding downtown Plymouth, and there never will be.

 

[whighlander]

I think you're starting to confuse "density" with "affluence". Plymouth's pop density is 608 per sq. mi. Yes, taken with the caveat that it's in one of the largest towns in the state by land (not-water) mass. But in the Top 100 municipalities in the state by population, only Dartmouth (350 per sq. mi), Middleborough (320), Wareham (470), Sandwich (480), Bourne (457), and Scituate (570) have lower population densities than Plymouth, which is the 19th largest municipality in the state by total population. Note the common location...in that grouping all but Dartmouth (which is nearby) and Scituate (which is not at all nearby) are physically connected to each other, so this is a bona fide density cavity in the state. That becomes more apparent when you start filling in the densities of the surrounding towns that didn't crack the Top 100 in population (the Lakevilles and Carvers and etc.). Barnstable at 45K population (vs. 56.4K Plymouth) /753 pop density/60 sq. mi. landmass (vs. 96.5 sq. mi. Plymouth) is the most regionally analogous town. Barnstable. The metropolis of Barnstable.

If it's in a density cavity today, chances are 75 years from now it's still going to be in a relative density cavity. If postwar suburbanization didn't change the density relative to its surroundings, I'm not sure what is left out there in the future that would.

That doesn't mean it can't develop, but Barnstable-level density is the aspiration here. And that's not very urban at all. Even with Plymouth's more convenient highway access. Having a pretty, affluent, compact, walkable downtown to build around is nice. But it's stretching the definition of "urban" beyond recognition to lump in places like the centermost of downtown Plymouth that are one pinpoint of density in a density cavity miles wide. Connectivity to the next node of density is not practical from Plymouth without a car or commuter rail trip. You can't just go "square-hopping" from downtown Plymouth and go from someplace to someplace. You can--within reason--go square-hopping from downtown Lexington to neighboring points of density with a short bus trip or very brisk walk. And even that's not remotely as easy to do as in Medford because Lexington is NOT urban and dense, but some people do get by every single day doing just that.

Single- or limited-point small town density is worth investing in, because the alternative (sprawlsprawlsprawlsprawl...) is unsustainable. But it's not apples-apples with sewing an urban net together. There's no "net" to be found in the density cavity surrounding downtown Plymouth, and there never will be.

F-Line -- you make some good points about the past -- you get carried away with the "sprawl term" and the even less well defined "unsustainable"

Neither of those terms really applies to anywhere in Massachusetts -- mostly because every square mile of Massachusetts was already incorporated as some sort of town or city by the beginning of the 20th Century -- before the advent of any significant number of cars. Many of the Boston suburbs were "street-car suburbs" where the houses in existence in 1900 could support mostly street-running rail that essentially is mirrored by today's MBTA bus routes.

So the true Southern California; Houston, Tx; Atlanta type of spraw is impossible -- there are no thousands of acres of the irvine Ranches to be carved-up into ten thousand uniform, house lots to build nearly identical houses.

Barring a financial collapse of mythic proportions Plymouth is too close to Boston and too available from the standpoint of land not to get developed with some significant density in the next few decades. As opposed to a semi-derilict older city such as Lynn with few large undeveloped tracts -- Plymouth will become the dense center for the local south shore edge of the Cape area with a population and employment cluster --the question is how well it will be connected to Boston proper:
I-93 is quite a good bet with the coupling to I-95 and I-495 via Rt-44 rebranded as I-793?
what about an electrified high frequency commuter rail?

 

[whighlander]

F-Line -- just for reference here's some census information on Plymouth and Lexington

Comparison of Plymouth and Lexington

Plymouth
Area
• Total 134.0 sq mi (347.0 km2)
• Land 96.5 sq mi (249.8 km2)
• Water 37.5 sq mi (97.2 km2)
Elevation[3] 187 ft (57 m)
Population (2010)[4]
• Total 56,468
• Density 608.1/sq mi (234.9/km2)

1940 13,100 +0.4%
1950 13,608 +3.9%
1960 14,445 +6.2%
1970 18,606 +28.8%
1980 35,913 +93.0%
1990 45,608 +27.0%
2000 51,701 +13.4%
2010 56,468 +9.2%

Lexington:
Area
• Total 16.5 sq mi (42.8 km2)
• Land 16.4 sq mi (42.5 km2)
• Water 0.1 sq mi (0.4 km2)
Elevation 210 ft (64 m)
Population (2010)
• Total 31,394
• Density 1,900/sq mi (730/km2)
1940 13,187 +39.3%
1950 17,335 +31.5%
1960 27,691 +59.7%
1970 31,886 +15.1%
1980 29,479 −7.5%
1990 28,974 −1.7%
2000 30,355 +4.8%
2010 31,394 +3.4%

Interesting that they start out essentially both as agricultural-dominated places of about the same population in 1940 -- 13,000

Lexington population more than doubles by 1970 31,000 and then essentially stops growing -- by 1970 only slow growth has occured in Plymouth to 18000
But then Plymouth takes off -- growing bigger than Lexington by 1980 and since then now more than 150% of Lexington's population

 

[belmont square]

Another reason to never trust municipal population figures. Based on the above stats, if Plymouth achieved Lexington-levels of population density its population would surpass 250,000. It would be by far the second largest city in New England. In the vast stretches of North America north and east of Philadelphia it would be rivaled only by NYC, Montreal and Boston. Yet it would look like...a middle class version of Lexington.

 

[whighlander]

Another reason to never trust municipal population figures. Based on the above stats, if Plymouth achieved Lexington-levels of population density its population would surpass 250,000. It would be by far the second largest city in New England. In the vast stretches of North America north and east of Philadelphia it would be rivaled only by NYC, Montreal and Boston. Yet it would look like...a middle class version of Lexington.

Belmo -- NO -- you misread the input parameters for your model -- this is of course unless you were expecting Hong Kong-like living on Plymouth's 37.5 sq mi (97.2 km2) of Water -- with a few dozen annually selected by lottery -- most-privalaged allowed to tie-up their "house-yachts" to the "ROCK"

At Lexington-level density only on the land -- you only get Plymouth to:
186,607 -- Lexington land area only
184,726 -- Lexington land and water included area

-- i had already predicted the 2060 Plymouth to be near Worcester in size

A 150,000 population Plymouth circa 2060 would certainly have parts that were transit eligible - and just like another Greater Boston local population and employment core such as Worcester -- there should be high frequency connectivity wih the Hub

Let's be reasonable :=}

 

[whighlander]

Another reason to never trust municipal population figures. Based on the above stats, if Plymouth achieved Lexington-levels of population density its population would surpass 250,000. It would be by far the second largest city in New England. In the vast stretches of North America north and east of Philadelphia it would be rivaled only by NYC, Montreal and Boston. Yet it would look like...a middle class version of Lexington.

Belmo -- but the more important point about Lexington and potentially Plymouth is that you missed in this thread my post replying to Henry in which I used the anology of volumetric mass [density and the DENSITY] of the "Allure of the Seas"

There are plenty of places in Lexington with a quite "semi-urban" level of density -- comparble to quite a few places within the Boston city limits -- and obviously Lexington as a whole's density exceeds the density of vast tracts of land in Boston including: Boston Common, Franklin Park, Arnold Arboretum, Forest Hills Cemetary.

Less Facetiously -- there are quite large parts of Lexington where the density exceeds that of Olmsted Green located on 42 acres on the property of the former Boston State Hospital in Mattapan.

The development currently includes 50 apartment rentals and 19 townhouse condominiums....The rental units are part of the development are fully occupied. The first phase of the development was completed in 2008 and the first occupants of the rental units moved in December of 2008, he said. Ultimately the plans provide for a total of 72 condominiums of the site with construction on the remaining units linked to sales.

You see that you really need to understand how to apply models -- and in particular the limits of validity of input parameter, etc -- if the models are to produce relevant predictions -- otherwise you get the famous -- GIGO -- aka "garbage in => Garbage Out"

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- just for reference here's some census information on Plymouth and Lexington

Comparison of Plymouth and Lexington

Plymouth
Area
• Total 134.0 sq mi (347.0 km2)
• Land 96.5 sq mi (249.8 km2)
• Water 37.5 sq mi (97.2 km2)
Elevation[3] 187 ft (57 m)
Population (2010)[4]
• Total 56,468
• Density 608.1/sq mi (234.9/km2)

1940 13,100 +0.4%
1950 13,608 +3.9%
1960 14,445 +6.2%
1970 18,606 +28.8%
1980 35,913 +93.0%
1990 45,608 +27.0%
2000 51,701 +13.4%
2010 56,468 +9.2%

Lexington:
Area
• Total 16.5 sq mi (42.8 km2)
• Land 16.4 sq mi (42.5 km2)
• Water 0.1 sq mi (0.4 km2)
Elevation 210 ft (64 m)
Population (2010)
• Total 31,394
• Density 1,900/sq mi (730/km2)
1940 13,187 +39.3%
1950 17,335 +31.5%
1960 27,691 +59.7%
1970 31,886 +15.1%
1980 29,479 −7.5%
1990 28,974 −1.7%
2000 30,355 +4.8%
2010 31,394 +3.4%

Interesting that they start out essentially both as agricultural-dominated places of about the same population in 1940 -- 13,000

Lexington population more than doubles by 1970 31,000 and then essentially stops growing -- by 1970 only slow growth has occured in Plymouth to 18000
But then Plymouth takes off -- growing bigger than Lexington by 1980 and since then now more than 150% of Lexington's population

And know what else is similar...both leveled off in the decade after major highway construction stopped. 1940-70 was the beginning of 128 to the end of new highway construction in the Boston area. Somehow all of that up-up-up-up- side in Lexington has resulted in flat growth over 40 years. Plymouth's 3 decades of >20% growth came with 1) completion of Route 3, 2) completion of 495/25 and 195 to Wareham and the original US 44 Super-2, and 3) completion of 25 to the Bourne. Unlike Lexington it's gotten significant transportation upgrades every decade since, but completion of 25 to the Bourne, commuter rail, upgrade of the 44 expressway, and the Sagamore flyover didn't sustain that level of growth. Who wants to put any money on that dip below 10% being an anomaly with the 2010's being economically stagnant and no major transportation projects planned for that region? It probably is going to regress a little closer to flat, although 5-6% growth this decade would still be pretty impressive.


If it took that massive a level of infrastructure-building to bring the postwar growth in there in the first place, what level of infrastructure-building does it take to sustain that? Did Lexington lose its shot at urbanity to having Route 3 and the Red Line canceled in subsequent decades? Possibly. What's so big left to build around Plymouth that would change the growth curve? Probably nothing. Add-a-lane on 3...complete 44 in M'boro? Those don't even rate on the same scale as the level of construction they got in the 60's and 70's. I'm not even sure they matter as much as the Sagamore flyover. Electrified commuter rail/intercity? To where?...it's a stub line that doesn't connect to anything, they bollixed Cordage Park so badly it doesn't even end where the density is, and I highly suspect the costs associated with upgrading the Old Colony in Dorchester are going to make Cape Rail a mix-and-match proposition with the Stoughton Route shouldering all traffic above and beyond current track capacity. Third Cape bridge?...too much opposition.

You pretty much do have to build 44 to Providence interchanging in Rehoboth with 895 to Aquidneck Island--two projects that have been deader-than-dead for nearly 4 decades--to sustain that asphalt growth spurt. And 44 has no demand without 895 (which RI is at peace with not building), so that growth pipeline is pure sprawl for sprawl's sake. Sound unattractive? Yes. But then again Plymouth sits in a big density cavity in the state that has persisted despite all this development, so unnatural/unsustainable is what you're left with to try to bootstrap out of that cavity. Does Plymouth need to be bootstrapped out of a density cavity? Does Plymouth even WANT to be bootstrapped out of a density cavity? Or does 5% growth per decade at Barnstable-level density suit them just fine?

 

[HenryAlan]

You see that you really need to understand how to apply models -- and in particular the limits of validity of input parameter, etc -- if the models are to produce relevant predictions -- otherwise you get the famous -- GIGO -- aka "garbage in => Garbage Out"

Westy, if you want to borrow from physics for your analogies, I suggest a nuclear detonation rather than a boat on the seas. Lexington may have some dense sections, and perhaps Plymouth will some day likewise have some dense pockets. But what Lexington lacks now and what the theorized Plymouth would also lack, is critical mass. A nuclear bomb won't explode until the plutonium is collapsed into a more concentrated area (achieved either by imploding a hollow structure or shooting two solid structures toward one another). Until that happens, there is no chain reaction, no explosion.

Pockets of density are not what drives transportation planning. It is large corridors of density that matter, not a few blocks of two story buildings. How far from the pictures you've posted can you go before the density drops off? The drop-off demonstrates a lack of critical mass.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Belmo -- but the more important point about Lexington and potentially Plymouth is that you missed in this thread my post replying to Henry in which I used the anology of volumetric mass [density and the DENSITY] of the "Allure of the Seas"

Or, more bluntly, "AFFLUENCE."

whigh...your baked-in biases are about as subtle to the board as a jackknifing tractor trailer. We're supposed to quarantine every urban core proposal in a "Crazy ____ Pitch" thread because "austerity!". But Lexington and Plymouth need their 21st Century Marshall Plan of Urbanity, like, yesterday. M'kay. The flood of figure-dumps from Wikipedia and tut-tuttings of other members isn't doing much to reconcile these humongous contradictions.

 

[whighlander]

And know what else is similar...both leveled off in the decade after major highway construction stopped. 1940-70 was the beginning of 128 to the end of new highway construction in the Boston area. Somehow all of that up-up-up-up- side in Lexington has resulted in flat growth over 40 years. Plymouth's 3 decades of >20% growth came with 1) completion of Route 3, 2) completion of 495/25 and 195 to Wareham and the original US 44 Super-2, and 3) completion of 25 to the Bourne. Unlike Lexington it's gotten significant transportation upgrades every decade since, but completion of 25 to the Bourne, commuter rail, upgrade of the 44 expressway, and the Sagamore flyover didn't sustain that level of growth. Who wants to put any money on that dip below 10% being an anomaly with the 2010's being economically stagnant and no major transportation projects planned for that region? It probably is going to regress a little closer to flat, although 5-6% growth this decade would still be pretty impressive.


If it took that massive a level of infrastructure-building to bring the postwar growth in there in the first place, what level of infrastructure-building does it take to sustain that? Did Lexington lose its shot at urbanity to having Route 3 and the Red Line canceled in subsequent decades? Possibly. What's so big left to build around Plymouth that would change the growth curve? Probably nothing. Add-a-lane on 3...complete 44 in M'boro? Those don't even rate on the same scale as the level of construction they got in the 60's and 70's. I'm not even sure they matter as much as the Sagamore flyover. Electrified commuter rail/intercity? To where?...it's a stub line that doesn't connect to anything, they bollixed Cordage Park so badly it doesn't even end where the density is, and I highly suspect the costs associated with upgrading the Old Colony in Dorchester are going to make Cape Rail a mix-and-match proposition with the Stoughton Route shouldering all traffic above and beyond current track capacity. Third Cape bridge?...too much opposition.

You pretty much do have to build 44 to Providence interchanging in Rehoboth with 895 to Aquidneck Island--two projects that have been deader-than-dead for nearly 4 decades--to sustain that asphalt growth spurt. And 44 has no demand without 895 (which RI is at peace with not building), so that growth pipeline is pure sprawl for sprawl's sake. Sound unattractive? Yes. But then again Plymouth sits in a big density cavity in the state that has persisted despite all this development, so unnatural/unsustainable is what you're left with to try to bootstrap out of that cavity. Does Plymouth need to be bootstrapped out of a density cavity? Does Plymouth even WANT to be bootstrapped out of a density cavity? Or does 5% growth per decade at Barnstable-level density suit them just fine?

F-Line -- you are starting to sound as doctrinaire as Riff

Lexington didn't stop growing in 1970 -- it just stoped growing in population -- just like Boston within the City limits and indeed greater Boston -- Today, fewer people occupy each dwelling unit than in the 1930's - 1970's when there were big families with a lot of kids

However, since I've lived in Lexington (1980's on) the town continues to be increasingly intensively developed, more housing units, a lot more indurstrial / R&D including the huge increase in employment density on the former Raytheon corporate Hq site [corner of Rt-2 and Rt-128] now being intensively developed as a major U.S. site of Shire -- the British Big Pharma

Similar upgrades are happening along Hartwell Ave -- as mostly 70's, 80 vintage manufacturing-centric 1 story buildings are being replaced with much highter value 2-3 story pharma-centric and other high value R&D, etc. -- often with fewer employees

In addition, on a daily basis Lexington continues to replace 1950's, 1960, 1970's era small-size houses with Mcmansions -- trading 3 or 4 bedrooms with 1 or 2 baths for 2 or 3 in-suites with 6 or more baths, etc.

Finally, the boundaries of the highest usage density parts of the town continue to expand in area and even in population density such as the new condos in the center on the site of the former low-priced hotel

So contrary to your overly simplistic model -- the end of road building by no-means stopped the development of Lexington --what slowed the rapid population growth:
1) end of the Baby Boom
2) end of the "fronier" -- aka the undeveloped relatively cheap land

Plymouth will not likely see another Baby Boom -- but there is plenty of relatively cheep developable land

 

[whighlander]

Westy, if you want to borrow from physics for your analogies, I suggest a nuclear detonation rather than a boat on the seas. Lexington may have some dense sections, and perhaps Plymouth will some day likewise have some dense pockets. But what Lexington lacks now and what the theorized Plymouth would also lack, is critical mass. A nuclear bomb won't explode until the plutonium is collapsed into a more concentrated area (achieved either by imploding a hollow structure or shooting two solid structures toward one another). Until that happens, there is no chain reaction, no explosion.

Pockets of density are not what drives transportation planning. It is large corridors of density that matter, not a few blocks of two story buildings. How far from the pictures you've posted can you go before the density drops off? The drop-off demonstrates a lack of critical mass.

Henry -- No the analogy is perfectly right -- you build a community by a mixture of higher and lower density components. If you want the average to be "urban" then you dominate the mix with high/ mid rises (Manhattan) or just an unending sea of low rises (e.g. Paris)

On the other hand you can end-up with a quite sucessful model of lower average density usage embedded with denser usage corridors in turn composed of a '"string of pearls" of dense cores along transit routes

I would argue that Arlington or North Cambridge along Mass Ave (#77 Bus) is such a model of more than adequate urbanity right along the Mass Ave with decreasing density to single family housing a few blocks away -- density of usage (as opposed to purely residents per sq unit) varies along Mass Ave with clusters of usage a few blocks apart

If the #77 extended a few more blocks into East Lexington -- I would argue that where I live would meet all of the definition of "adequate urbanity" with mostly single family housing and some nice park / conservation land
Take a Google Map view of the following
Lexington,+Middlesex,+Mass. 02421 42.443037,-71.228964
within a 5 minute walk are:
1) Sutherland Park -- a playground for kids, little league field, 30 acreas of conservation land with an abundance of trails for dog walking, a vernal pool, thousands of trees and a few big rocks
2) a strip of comerce along Mass Ave with 2 liquor stores, Pizza shop, Greek, Chinese, Mexican, Indian, and typical American restaurants in several price ranges, Bank, some office space, tailor, some miscelaneous merchants, a small manufactury
3) the #62 bus stop
4) car wash and automotive service center
5) the Minuteman Bike Trail
6) about 30 or so home-based businesses with a wide variety of skills

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line -- you are starting to sound as doctrinaire as Riff

Lexington didn't stop growing in 1970 -- it just stoped growing in population -- just like Boston within the City limits and indeed greater Boston -- Today, fewer people occupy each dwelling unit than in the 1930's - 1970's when there were big families with a lot of kids

However, since I've lived in Lexington (1980's on) the town continues to be increasingly intensively developed, more housing units, a lot more indurstrial / R&D including the huge increase in employment density on the former Raytheon corporate Hq site [corner of Rt-2 and Rt-128] now being intensively developed as a major U.S. site of Shire -- the British Big Pharma

Similar upgrades are happening along Hartwell Ave -- as mostly 70's, 80 vintage manufacturing-centric 1 story buildings are being replaced with much highter value 2-3 story pharma-centric and other high value R&D, etc. -- often with fewer employees

In addition, on a daily basis Lexington continues to replace 1950's, 1960, 1970's era small-size houses with Mcmansions -- trading 3 or 4 bedrooms with 1 or 2 baths for 2 or 3 in-suites with 6 or more baths, etc.

Finally, the boundaries of the highest usage density parts of the town continue to expand in area and even in population density such as the new condos in the center on the site of the former low-priced hotel

So contrary to your overly simplistic model -- the end of road building by no-means stopped the development of Lexington --what slowed the rapid population growth:
1) end of the Baby Boom
2) end of the "fronier" -- aka the undeveloped relatively cheap land

Plymouth will not likely see another Baby Boom -- but there is plenty of relatively cheep developable land

So where is this moment of criticality in Henry's nuclear physics analogy that dictates this density cavity is going to become another Worcester by 2060? You're not explaining at all what the inertia-changer is here that will flip all that developable land into developed land by urban manifest destiny.

Or, for that matter, where the density "string of pearls" is going to come from when no such thing exists in greater Plymouth. It's an isolated area of downtown density disconnected from other areas of relative density. Lexington is not analogous. You cannot go square-hopping from downtown Plymouth to the outskirts, or bleed into downtown Kingston or Duxbury on a string. Plymouth's population density and mixed use is pinned against the shoreline by Route 3 to the west, 3A to the north, and Plantation Hwy. to the south. What has crossed to the other side of 3 in recent years: stuff like The Shops at 5 over by the prison, Myles Standish Plaza, Independence Mall/Kingston commuter rail station, and Cordage Park. Big box, big box, big box + commuter lots, big box + commuter lots. Thousands upon thousands of parking spaces...orientation to major highway interchanges. Suburban sprawl-type development that acts as an insulator to square-hopping.

Efforts to TOD up that cookie-cutter sprawl construction haven't gained any steam, if they were even plausible to begin with. Developers aren't interested in Cordage Park et al without a prohibitive amount of public welfare paying their way to occupy that space. So where's the relentless pull to urbanity coming from that sets up the string-of-pearls and turns this place inevitably into New Worcester? And if it's so relentless, why haven't they pivoted to developing things that encourage string-of-pearls type connections instead of doing a ring of parking lots around downtown?

You make it sound like all this undeveloped land is being held hostage and needs to be liberated from its captors with some sort of mechanized invasion. Inertia would suggest this is an area that does not much want to be urban. If cheap land were as big a self-starter as you claim, shouldn't the forces of the real estate market already by working their magic? Honestly, I'm not even sure they want it. That ring of big boxes around downtown hasn't been expanding exponentially since they first went up. It does seem to be an insulating ring separating out the parking lots from downtown. Could it be that this is by design and they are simply content to draw that demarcation point at the expressways, fiddle with downtown as a single point of self-contained density, and resist further intrusion? Shocking, I know...a suburb that wants to remain a suburb.



So where's that spark. The NATURAL, area-endemic spark for development. That doesn't involve a nearly unprecedented Massachusetts Marshall Plan, which we of course can't afford for the pre-existing urban areas so why are we blowing that wad out here. OK? What is this manifest destiny of yours rooted in? I'm patient. I can sit through a few more rounds of irrelevant sidebars and condescending swipes at other AB.org members to hear a good working theory come out of this. Stick to your own train of thought and lay it out for us.

 

[whighlander]

So where is this moment of criticality in Henry's nuclear physics analogy that dictates this density cavity is going to become another Worcester by 2060? You're not explaining at all what the inertia-changer is here that will flip all that developable land into developed land by urban manifest destiny.

Or, for that matter, where the density "string of pearls" is going to come from when no such thing exists in greater Plymouth. It's an isolated area of downtown density disconnected from other areas of relative density. Lexington is not analogous. You cannot go square-hopping from downtown Plymouth to the outskirts, or bleed into downtown Kingston or Duxbury on a string. Plymouth's population density and mixed use is pinned against the shoreline by Route 3 to the west, 3A to the north, and Plantation Hwy. to the south. What has crossed to the other side of 3 in recent years: stuff like The Shops at 5 over by the prison, Myles Standish Plaza, Independence Mall/Kingston commuter rail station, and Cordage Park. Big box, big box, big box + commuter lots, big box + commuter lots. Thousands upon thousands of parking spaces...orientation to major highway interchanges. Suburban sprawl-type development that acts as an insulator to square-hopping.

Efforts to TOD up that cookie-cutter sprawl construction haven't gained any steam, if they were even plausible to begin with. Developers aren't interested in Cordage Park et al without a prohibitive amount of public welfare paying their way to occupy that space. So where's the relentless pull to urbanity coming from that sets up the string-of-pearls and turns this place inevitably into New Worcester? And if it's so relentless, why haven't they pivoted to developing things that encourage string-of-pearls type connections instead of doing a ring of parking lots around downtown?

You make it sound like all this undeveloped land is being held hostage and needs to be liberated from its captors with some sort of mechanized invasion. Inertia would suggest this is an area that does not much want to be urban. If cheap land were as big a self-starter as you claim, shouldn't the forces of the real estate market already by working their magic? Honestly, I'm not even sure they want it. That ring of big boxes around downtown hasn't been expanding exponentially since they first went up. It does seem to be an insulating ring separating out the parking lots from downtown. Could it be that this is by design and they are simply content to draw that demarcation point at the expressways, fiddle with downtown as a single point of self-contained density, and resist further intrusion? Shocking, I know...a suburb that wants to remain a suburb.



So where's that spark. The NATURAL, area-endemic spark for development. That doesn't involve a nearly unprecedented Massachusetts Marshall Plan, which we of course can't afford for the pre-existing urban areas so why are we blowing that wad out here. OK? What is this manifest destiny of yours rooted in? I'm patient. I can sit through a few more rounds of irrelevant sidebars and condescending swipes at other AB.org members to hear a good working theory come out of this. Stick to your own train of thought and lay it out for us.

F-Line -- Henry's Critical Mass is a misused analogy - certainly the bomb part -- perhaps a nuclear reactor where the nuclear reaction occurs in a sustained and controlled fashion just as long as there is a sufficient supply of fissionable material and that the losses of the neutrons are limited -- triggering subsequent fissions

that's a model for Kendall2 or the SPID -- the idea generating entrepreneurial companies are the fisionable materials the "neutrons" are the innovators who might fly-out from a sucesss to start the next possible winner. For example edson decastro lett DEC to start Data General, or the various spin-outs and spin-offs from Analog Devices over its 50 year-plus history (e.g. Memsic Inc, OnDemand Microelectronics) - there are loses as companies fail and/or move away and or employees and entrepreurs move away for various reasons.

Kendall / SPID will continue to prosper so long as there are enough new innovators arriving on the scene and who stay around long enough to create some new "gazelle start-ups" and keep the chain-reaction running.

 

[cozzyd]

According to http://scorecard.inrix.com/scorecard/uscorridors.asp , we have quite a ways to go before we compete with the big boys.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

According to http://scorecard.inrix.com/scorecard/uscorridors.asp , we have quite a ways to go before we compete with the big boys.

That's quitter talk! We finish second to no one if we invest all our money now into building the Worcester-by-the-Sea that no one is asking for! Because...winning?

 

[datadyne007]

There were 6 disabled vehicles (at the same time) today going south on the SE Expressway. Absolute disaster.