Cape Cod Rail, Bridges and Highways

jklo said:
That's a lot of money for an area which is having serious structural population issues. Maybe WFH will save it but I wouldn't want to bet $2B that the Cape will survive once the Boomers die off.
Click to expand...
ZESIJHPP4NFFLASFPDHFBFUGMY.png


Once again, more easily-debunked vibes-as-facts concern trolling from you. You are not very good at this.
 
jklo said:
That's a lot of money for an area which is having serious structural population issues. Maybe WFH will save it but I wouldn't want to bet $2B that the Cape will survive once the Boomers die off.
Click to expand...

After the baby boomers die off the cape will live on as a tourist attraction - Cape Ghost Town
 
FK4 said:
It’ll be the same fate as everywhere else: the only people who will own property will be international and domestic oligarchs and corporate execs, rented to wealthy tourists or used as investment pieces, with the remaining year round population performing cleaning, restaurant service, and Amazon delivery for the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I think I'll add "Domestic Oligarch" to my title, or maybe just "Outer Cape Despot." Thanks COVID for encouraging my tyrannical tendencies.
 
Last edited:
www.bostonglobe.com

Healey administration reaches new agreement with federal officials on Cape Cod bridge project - The Boston Globe

The memorandum of understanding announced Thursday between the Healey administration and Army Corps of Engineers effectively replaces one the state signed in 2020 when it embarked on replacing the 89-year-old Bourne and Sagamore bridges.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

The Healey administration has estimated that for the Sagamore Bridge alone, construction on a new bridge would begin in late calendar year 2028 and would last until late 2035 or early 2036.
Click to expand...
 
I'm willing to bet that the soft sandy subsoil of the Cape makes tunneling prohibitively expensive.
 
Tallguy said:
Was tunneling explored as an option?
Click to expand...
Sorry I don't have a cite handy, but yeah, I've seen some report where tunneling was considered briefly. In any case, the tunnel would be more expensive. Also, the Army Corps of Engineers was against it, in case they ever want to dredge the canal to be deeper. Putting a tunnel deep enough for that would have made a too-expensive tunnel even more expensive.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Once again, more easily-debunked vibes-as-facts concern trolling from you. You are not very good at this.
Click to expand...

Don't take my word for it, take the towns who held meetings concerned about what's going to happen when all the Boomers are dead. WFH may save it after all... but $2B is a lot of coin.

Charlie_mta said:
Tourism traffic will always be a big thing.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical that it can work without a sustainable Year Round population.
 
jklo said:
Don't take my word for it, take the towns who held meetings concerned about what's going to happen when all the Boomers are dead. WFH may save it after all... but $2B is a lot of coin.
Click to expand...
What did they say? Specifics...cites...links. Sorry, your chronic pattern of posting behavior does not lend itself to "trust me on this, bruh".

:rolleyes:
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
What did they say? Specifics...cites...links. Sorry, your chronic pattern of posting behavior does not lend itself to "trust me on this, bruh".

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd like to see specific citations as well. I grew up by the Cape (many years ago) and follow the news there. What specific meetings were held "about what's going to happen when all the Boomers are dead"? I haven't read about any.

The suggestion the Cape's year-round population is going to crash after the boomers pass is, to put it charitably, ridiculous.
 
ritchiew said:
Sorry I don't have a cite handy, but yeah, I've seen some report where tunneling was considered briefly. In any case, the tunnel would be more expensive. Also, the Army Corps of Engineers was against it, in case they ever want to dredge the canal to be deeper. Putting a tunnel deep enough for that would have made a too-expensive tunnel even more expensive.
Click to expand...
The terrain along much of the canal is high on both sides, notably around the Sagamore Bridge extending most of the way toward the Bourne Bridge. The result is long approach tunnels would be needed for the canal crossing. Add to that the highway interchanges close to the canal that would be needed on both sides of the waterway. If the current interchanges are pushed away from the canal, that would be a lot of expensive land takings.
 
ritchiew said:
Sorry I don't have a cite handy, but yeah, I've seen some report where tunneling was considered briefly. In any case, the tunnel would be more expensive. Also, the Army Corps of Engineers was against it, in case they ever want to dredge the canal to be deeper. Putting a tunnel deep enough for that would have made a too-expensive tunnel even more expensive.
Click to expand...
So, the present depth is 32ft. Let's assume future proofing to 50ft. Again, assume another 15 ft as a buffer. Add another 35ishft to reach the lower deck of a 55ish ft TBM shaft. About 2500ft of tunnel each side and then some trenches either side?
The power ROW could be used to connect 495 to Rt 6 on the other side.
 
And lots of trains, and affordable housing (plenty of space at Otis) to reduce the traffic
 
jklo said:
Don't take my word for it, take the towns who held meetings concerned about what's going to happen when all the Boomers are dead. WFH may save it after all... but $2B is a lot of coin.
Click to expand...
Those towns aren't posting here, unfortunately, so it still seems you are asking us to take your word on it. The retired Boomers will certainly die off, but there is already a growing pre-retirement Gen-X community that seems poised to replace a lot of the Boomers. Add to that longevity* and there should be at least a few more decades of a stable or growing year round population.

* while US life expectancy has decreased somewhat in recent years, this is not true in Massachusetts, and it is especially not true among the wealthier people who will retire at the Cape.
 
HenryAlan said:
Those towns aren't posting here, unfortunately, so it still seems you are asking us to take your word on it. The retired Boomers will certainly die off, but there is already a growing pre-retirement Gen-X community that seems poised to replace a lot of the Boomers. Add to that longevity* and there should be at least a few more decades of a stable or growing year round population.

* while US life expectancy has decreased somewhat in recent years, this is not true in Massachusetts, and it is especially not true among the wealthier people who will retire at the Cape.
Click to expand...
The Cape has demographic challenges for sure, but a claim of looming demographic extinction so total it merits full disinvestment is a *wild* claim that requires some toothy evidence-based backing. Personal vibes and unsourced heresay don't even begin to cut it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top