Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wgc123 t1_j2tpl81 wrote

Reply to comment by SandyBouattick in Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

I’m not convinced Boston really does get outsized investment in infrastructure. Of course it gets most, since most of the people are there, most of the taxable income is there, and maybe that will always seem unfair. But does the metro area really get the most funding per capita, or per taxable income?

Infrastructure in rural areas benefits a lot fewer people who bring in a lot less tax income. Maybe your rickety town bridge that only serves a dozen cars a day is relatively more expensive than the Zakim bridge serving tens of thousands

8

SandyBouattick t1_j2tq1pr wrote

Yeah, it's a tough situation to figure out. Having the best hospital in Boston makes sense because the most people are served by it, but then if you pay taxes and have no hospital nearby you don't feel like you're getting much return on your investment. The same with public transportation. Paying a ton to keep the T going in Boston makes sense, but it sucks to pay for it and not even have a train station within a 45 minute drive. It's a classic problem.

5

GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j2v5xbz wrote

The furthest west MBTA train stop is in Fitchburg, which is decidedly central MA.

5

wgc123 t1_j31wn6m wrote

But it’s only useful to commute into Boston: are there really people willing to commute farther than that?

Personally I’d like to see high speed trains from Boston to Worcester and Springfield, and wonder if they are big enough to support the beginnings of a train system. While that wouldn’t directly support rural areas, it would be supporting a much higher percentage of residents plus putting transit in reach of more people

2