Boston Globe discusses problems with reverse commuting – you know – folks who may live in the City but need to reverse commute.
Read more here.
Boston Globe: “People who work in the suburbs also struggle to get to their jobs”
by Amy Sangiolo | Dec 27, 2019 | Newton | 51 comments
Key fact: 15%.
And of course there is also the lateral commute, suburb to suburb — no great shakes either plus there is not even a reverse!
Thanks for posting this Amy. Here’s two numbers (not in the article) that illustrate this problem:
Those numbers also go a long way towards explaining why our traffic is so bad AND why we need to build more workforce housing in Newton near jobs.
Oh the article also explains why Northland’s proposed shuttles matter. It’s not perfect but it’s an important part of the what will make the 180,000 square feet of office space attractive to employers.
People don’t work at the same company for years like they used to in my parent’s generation. People change jobs. I’ve worked in:
Boston
Westborough
Newton
Framingham
Burlington
Newton
Chelmsford
Wakefield
Southborough
35 years of working, and more than one of the above was the company itself moving.
You can’t predict ahead of time where people are going to end up, because changing jobs is a fact of life these days and is only getting more frequent.
For the people who rent, they haven’t fully invested in the community so they’re more mobile. But once you have kids in school, you don’t want to yank them out every time you change jobs, so, you take the job and the commute that comes with it. I don’t see how all this “planning” is anything more than wishful thinking and nostalgia for a time when people worked at the same place for 35 years.
Another reason why we need to add more apartments to our housing stock.
Interesting article. It’s always good when things suspected are studied and found to be true instead of remaining theoretical – not just the reverse commute but the tight job market. Businesses are back to offering sign-on bonuses again. Even included a plug for the 128 Business Council employer-sponsored shuttle.
It’s obvious that 128 has become an economic mecca which is why large businesses, hotels and housing (tall and/or wide) facing 128 would flourish in Riverside.
Rick, I agree that changing jobs is more frequent now particularly in the “project based” jobs – at least before families have school age children. And a large percentage of women are having children later in life than before. I did exactly that but my kids are part of the exception that proves the rule.
Another thing that’s changed though and has to be factored into the mix, is that now many jobs allow employees to work from their homes – even in executive positions – meaning the employee can keep the same job as their careers progress.
Nest time, @Amy, please cut and paste pertinent quotes from articles for those of us who face a firewall.
@ Greg : The solution CANNOT always be to build up more in Newton. Or Needham, Cambridge, Wellesley, Waltham or any city for that matter. Isn’t THAT a recipe for a homogeneous built-up sprawling suburban landscape?
And last I looked, didn’t Newton just commit to adding a few thousand apartments to our ‘housing stock’?
It saddens me to think how far away from a major metro area one will have to live to avoid this fascination with development … when is enough, enough?
@John O: Yes, if Newton moves forward with Riverside, Northland and new projects as defined by the Washington Street Vision plan, we will be making a significant contribution towards addressing Greater Boston’s housing shortage. The problem is there are some who would prefer that none of these units are built.
From 2010 to 2017, Massachusetts gained over 350,000 new jobs, primarily in Greater Boston. By 2040 Massachusetts is anticipated to grow by 600,000 (that’s equal to another Boston).
Seems to me that if these folks can’t find homes near jobs we risk even worse gridlock and accelerated environmental catastrophe. But if you have a better solution, I’d love to hear it.
I just started at a company in Nonantum and a young colleague who had been living with her parents in Marlboro and now lives in Somerville commented to me that her commuting time didn’t change with her move. Another, who lived in South Boston, spent an hour commuting most days and changed jobs, in part, because of that.
I’m told that a bus is supposed to start soon that will connect our offices with Watertown Square, but I’m not sure of the timeline and haven’t heard much about it in a while.
That said, even people who live relatively close (Brighton, Watertown, Waltham, etc.) tend to drive mostly becuase, as a community, we make that easier. Streets feel dangerous to cyclists, paths don’t get shoveled in the winter and become icy, and understanding where to park your bike or how to do it is complicated. Driving is the easy solution, there is plenty of free parking. Biking 2 miles, even in cold and ice, isn’t all that difficult, but it takes some thought upfront.
If we want to change behaviors we need to make those new behaviors the easy choice. We choose, instead, to insist that we have free parking, car-only streets, and call bus systems “extra”. These things should be our focus, not just add-ons. We don’t supply easy bike parking, we build houses with huge garages out front, making it clear where our priority lies, and we spend money plowing our roads but not our sidewalks.
No single move or single bus route is going to solve all our problems, there is no magical solution. But we need to start.
John,
There is never, nor will there ever, be enough new development in Newton, to satisfy Greg, stop or slow climate change, and house less affluent and if not possible all levels of affluents and those who, at least temporarily, would have shorter commutes to work. If that is not the case, I’d ask Greg, where does he draw the line?
There needs to be better circumferential public transport i.e. direct point-to-point transit service along the 128 corridor. The report does a pretty good job presenting a case study of Needham, which had 23k jobs as of 2015, 92% of which were filles by non-Needhamites. SInce then, a number of major enployers have moved in and/or ramped up hiring, e.g. TripAdvisor, SharkNinja, BigBelly, a couple of new hotels, etc., so the number is prpbably closer to 30k now. But Needham Crossing remains unserved by the MBTA and there are no real options for suburbanitea to get to Needham other than by car.
During the Big Dig there were several lawsuits to require that the Commonwealth met its obligations under the Clean Air Act, which mandates envrionmental mitigation measures be undertaken to offset any project that results in increased traffic/emissions. Doea anyone know if the Commonwealth fulfilled its Clean Air Act obligations when it expanded Route 128 to 8+ lanes between Wellesley and Randolph? It seems to me that it would have been incumbent uppn them to make major investments in public transit in the southwest suburbs, but I never noticed any.
I have worked in a variety of towns over my 40 plus year work career. I have lived in North Quincy, Wollaston, and lastly Scituate, commuted to Boston, Quincy, Brockton, Lynn, Fairhaven, Jamaica Plain, Weymouth, New Bedford, Brookline, Newton, and Plymouth. Years ago I have also commuted to Bourne, Centerville, and Hyannis. To expect folks to move to accommodate work is unrealistic and very expensive. My longest job was 9 years in my work history. To purchase and sell a home in 3-4 years is not financially beneficial. Even rental agreements can be problematic for those who move often. In one job/apartment location, I was able to take the T every day. It was manageable and worthwhile because it was accessible and essentially hassle free. People lean toward transportation that is affordable, requires few or no transitions (train to train, bus to train, etc.) and takes you within blocks of your destinations. To expect people to take several trains, buses, and/or swap makes commuting a nightmare of connectivity and time management.
Greg,
There will likely be lots of new housing at the Northland site, something like 40B, but not the Northland which you envisioned. That’s now bye bye thanks to efforts like yours steadfastly to not make any modest modification vis a vis Right Size to avert the referendum now on autopilot to overturn the City Council Special Use Permit. Insofar as Riverside, that’s already on track, no IF, as you suggest.
After these project including Washington Street vision, will you let up already. Newton residents want to preserve some semblance of the amenities which drew them here without your densification of the entire City.
Commuting via public transit in Newton only really works if you work in Boston during typical business hours. Even Cambridge is a pain to get to taking public transportation. But commuting to the suburbs without a car is pretty much impossible. That’s why I think that making Newton inhospitable to car ownership is the wrong move until we make our public transit useful for people who work in different areas or outside of 9-5ish. (And also public transit to shopping, while we’re at it)
@Jim – as a Newton resident I can speak for myself. You shouldn’t presume to know know what I “want”. It’s rhetorical arrogance. Speak for yourself.
And I have not read any posting from anybody that calls for the “…densification of the entire City. ” That’s hyperbole, nothing more, meant to inflame and divide. It sucks the air out of the room and does not further the polite exchange of ideas. We can do better.
Thanks
“I don’t see how all this “planning” is anything more than wishful thinking and nostalgia for a time when people worked at the same place for 35 years.”
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint Rick. To think that many people working blue-collar jobs along Needham Street or in the Northland Commercial Space, will will be living in Northland is wishful thinking. Also worth considering is the fact that every younger person I know doesn’t choose to live where they work, even if they can.
I hadn’t thought about this yet, but it really makes me fail to see the benefit of Northland. We simply cannot handle more traffic, and the what-i-assume-will-be-temporary “shuttle” won’t make up for the traffic increase. Fix the traffic issue and I am all for it.
Peter Bloy,
So you find that the below sentence is “arrogance”, “meant to inflame and divide” and “sucks the air out of the room”???
Yikes!
“Newton residents want to preserve some semblance of the amenities which drew them here without…densification of the entire City.”
@Greg
I’ve seen you post this “statistic” a few times now, and it certainly has shock value given the extremes:
“85 percent of Newton residents commute out of Newton to go to their jobs.”
But I wonder how it could be true?
Newton has (according to the 2017 estimates) about 89,000 residents.
Newton Public Schools have 12,251 students (not including METCO) who are Newton residents and unlikely to be commuting to work outside of Newton.
Then add in another 4,300 residents under the age of 5 (who are neither in the school system, nor likely commuting to work outside of Newton).
Then add in another 4,500 Boston College students living in Newton (not including the ~3,000 more whose dorms are in Boston); plus 1,250 Lasell University students living on campus.
Then add 15,000 people over the age of 65 (a small portion of whom continue to commute to work).
Assuming a stay-at-home parent rate of 30% (the national average), there are another 2,500 non-working residents (just don’t tell my wife I labeled her non-working).
By this math, only about 55% of residents of Newton are in the labor force; how could 85% of Newton residents work outside of Newton?
Presumably, the 85% is only among those who actually have jobs, which makes it more like 45% of Newton residents, and about 10% of them (~4,000) ride the MBTA.
Fundamentally, I take two issues with your use of this metric:
First, it conflates “residents” with “people with jobs” which implies that children, seniors, and other members of the community somehow don’t count.
Second, it implies that these people with jobs (who are Newton’s only source of income) are mostly responsible for a problem (traffic) that, in my observation, is caused at least as much by parents ferrying their kids to school and seniors driving slowly about the Star Market parking lot.
@Donald, I think the plain reading by most people of the 85% figure is that it applies to the working population, not all residents. I don’t see @Greg’s use of the number as being inflammatory, just descriptive.
Also, his point that commuting traffic is alleviated when the home-to-job commute can avoid cars is a truism. But, also, your point that intra-city, non-commuting traffic contributes to congestion is a truism–and that those types of trips can grow in number independent of the level of commuting trips.
Therefore the overall solutions to congestion need to address both commuting and non-commuting car usage. Densification of housing can provide large enough nodes of users to enable mass transit to substitute for individual car usage in the commuting realm, and can also provide the potential for “village” settings that reduce some non-commuting automobile use; but there is no guarantee that those reductions will offset the overall population-induced traffic from a new development. The net result is quite site-specific, and also depends on the demographics of those living in the development and the commitments received from the developer.
What Paul Levy said.
Of course the number refers to people who work. This statistic comes from page 5 of the City of Newton’s Economic Development Strategy, which was adopted by the City Council in February. Here’s the full excerpt:
Of course, there is no one cause for congestion (nor were the authors blaming workers they were just reporting) and we won’t solve congestion by fixing one thing.
But the authors of this study drew a direct link between “cross commuting” and a housing “mismatch” and the opportunity to attract good companies here.
While good people may disagree on the solutions I don’t see how the facts are debatable.
@Michael: Add-A-Lane, the moniker of the project that widened 128, was federally funded. I know some turtles were rescued and water was protected, but don’t recall air being discussed much!
@Paul
Obviously I agree that the “plain” reading of Greg’s statistic would be “of the working population” but the way he uses the metric implies a much more dramatic situation than is actually the case. By declaring it “85 percent” of residents, it makes it seem as though almost everybody is commuting outside the city…while actually more than half of residents DON’T leave Newton for work.
If I framed it that way – less than half of Newton residents leave the City during the day – it would create a very different impression about the transportation needs for the city.
Without providing context about what the “working population” is compared to the entire population, the metric makes the situation appear more dramatic than the reality that it portrays.
@Don: You don’t need a metric to know we have a problem. All you need to do is be on Newton’s roads during commuting hours. That’s “dramatic” enough.
Metrics help frame the problem so we can seek solutions. How about if we stop the nit-picking and talk about that?
And btw, school traffic is a huge traffic generating problem too. So let’s talk about dropping school bus fees and perhaps even adding car drop off fees.
But, again, no one solution will solve a problem this large. And this thread is about commuting
@Donald,
How dare you use math to argue the facts. Lol. Didn’t you know that the narrative must always fit the agenda
So while I agree with everything Chuck, Greg, and others have said about Newton commuters and reverse-commuters, I fear the traffic conversation often tends to be far too Newton-centric. Unfortunately, the reality is that people also commute through Newton for the very same reasons — other communities have the same issues with commuting. The only figures I’ve seen are those for through traffic on the Pike, which as you’d expect, dwarfs everything else going on in Newton. I don’t think we know how much congestion elsewhere in the city is from those just passing through.
Until all communities around us address this problem, I fear that for every commuter we take off the road, we will just induce one more commuter going to Watertown, Cambridge or Boston from Needham, Dedham or Attleboro to bypass congested highways . It’s a regional problem that’s going to require a major investment in public transit and congestion pricing in addition to new housing, beyond the city border.
@Adam: Totally agree.
Great op-ed, Greg! Yes, it all starts with whether we are willing to raise new revenue, reallocate funding, and reconsider how much we subsidize driving.
And school traffic is very much about commuting, not just kids’ commuting patterns, but how it impacts their parents. Those unnecessary or extended car trips contribute to congestion at peak hours and slow everyone else down as well. Safe Routes to School tosses around the figure that 25% of morning traffic is school-bound.
If the posit of Greg and others here that dense new Newton housing will contribute to addressing traffic congestion at least here in Newton, wouldn’t that require elimination of an equal number of the less dense (single family houses, etc.) housing? Otherwise, any added housing in Newton (be that dense or less dense, near transportation nodes or not) will only make Newton traffic worse.
For the sake of Newton traffic congestion at least, it would seem we’d preserve Newton housing as it is now.
I think the metric actually explains a lot about the different points of view on growth/development for Newton.
In my view, the metric presented by Greg (that 85% of Newton workers commute outside the City) is something to be celebrated. We’ve created a community that is SO incredibly desirable to live in that a plurality of working residents choose to live here despite the fact that it requires them to face a nasty commute each day.
This feels like the definition of success for a suburban community like Newton.
Traffic, IMHO, is not a ‘problem’ per se…it’s just a thing. More people driving means more traffic. If we want to stack more people into Newton…we can’t really do it without mitigating traffic somehow (which might include just dealing with it).
The reverse commute to Riverside has always been an afterthought when it should be the foundation. #TrafficOrientedDevelopment
If the pro housing folks were serious about addressing the traffic issue they would insist on ZERO, parking in places such as northland combined with no street parking around the surrounding areas. If density increases car ownership, its doing it wrong.
.. but since this is really driven by the Newton chamber of commerce ..
@Donald Ross “We’ve created a community that is SO incredibly desirable to live in that a plurality of working residents choose to live here despite the fact that it requires them to face a nasty commute each day.
This feels like the definition of success for a suburban community like Newton.”
First, I think you have an image of Newton which isn’t universally accepted. Newton has a real identity crisis. To some it is suburban, to others it isn’t The even bigger gap is between those who want to retain it as suburban, and those who want it to be more urban. This is at the heart of the current debate.
Second, as someone who works is Boston and lives in Newton Centre, we don’t begin to have a nasty commute. I have at least four modes of transportation to commute each day, and my commute pales in comparison to my coworkers who live in Worcester, NH, RI, South Shore, North Shore.
Third, Newton just isn’t THAT desirable unless you feel compelled to live here for the schools
If we are truly looking to match traffic in with traffic out, let’s look to create places for Newton residents to work IN NEWTON and reduce traffic coming in and out of the city. To me, that means developing attractive COMMERCIAL spaces for biotech and business development venues (e.g. WeWork); two areas of high growth in the greater Boston area. This would also have the ancillary benefit of shoring up the tax base for the long term financial stability of our city government (which, with OPEB and what looks to be the fundamental rising costs of our public schools, are not stable and looking increasingly unstable). What’s happening right now, with residential projects slated for the only open and develop-able spaces in the city, will eliminate the possibility to bring commercial developments into the city.
@Greg Reibman in your role with the CoC, I can’t understand why you aren’t raising holy hell about this. (I don’t understand why more of us aren’t.)
@ANP: Ah but I do! All the time. And so does virtually every other business organization in the state.
That’s why I’m always talking about the 180,000 square feet of brick and beam office space that’s a key feature of the Northland project. And that’s why I was very disappointed when 562,000 square feet of office was trimmed to 250,000 sf and 64,655 sf of retail was reduced from to approximately 44,000 sf from Riverside as part of the unfortunate Right Size compromise. (Also slashed was the size of a planned hotel to replace Hotel Indigo from 194 to 150 room keys.)
Business attraction and retention is a big part of my job. But businesses onwers today tell us that hiring and retaining workers is one of their biggest challenges. Addressing our housing and transportation needs are critical to employers who are here today and any who may choose to do business here. All of these things are connected. You can’t solve one without addressing the others.
@Claire
I agree with your analysis. What I don’t understand is why the folks who want to urbanize Newton don’t just move to Somerville. It’s not like the dense urban utopia doesn’t exist…it’s not even that far away.
Newton is a great location. I have changed jobs three time in the 12 years I have lived here. A prospective employer being located in Newton has never been in my top 20 criteria.
If cool, hip companies locate at Riverside or Northland, younger workers will happily do the reverse commute to Newton from Boston. They aren’t going to opt to live in Newton
It’s amazing how hard some try to cram a square peg into a round hole.
The article states what some of us have been saying fo the past 2 years…young professionals do NOT want to move to Newton. Newton is just not that kind of place. That’s why companies are relocating from 128 into the Boston.
Now if Northland were to revise their plan that a large percentage of the rental units be reserved for employees of the adjoining commercial space – in essence ensuring residents do not need cars – then I know myself (and others) would be more supportive.
But simply allowing Northland to add density and hope that things work out; that stars and moon align; that the youth market will suddenly decide that Newton is cool and will only take the T to Boston and not have/use cars, are odds I’m not willing to take.
Matt: I don’t believe our housing discrimination laws allow that.
This business of trying to attract the millennial workforce smacks of “nobody wants to live there anymore, it’s too crowded”.
The purest metric of desirability is housing cost…and we’re winning that in spades.
Newton wins because it has single family zoning (ie a yard), excellent schools, and proximity to high paying jobs.
If we create density, the upside is Brookline. The downside is Watertown (if we can’t afford to make the commensurate investment in schools). Or we can just keep being the Garden City.
@Don Ross: Not sure I’d be scoffing at Watertown.
Watertown is rebuilding three elementary schools without an override or state school billing funds. And they’re building a new high school, also with no override.
And they’re attracting all those biotech and other innovation economy companies that ANP was just advocating for.
And yes they’ve built housing.
@Greg: my biotech company is located in Watertown. We have over 200 employees and not a single one lives in Watertown. I am the only one that lives in Newton. Most live west of 128 and we have a few people who commute in from past Worcester. They commute because they have no desire to live in this area. In the companies I have worked at in Watertown and Cambridge, my experience is that people are diverse in where they choose to live. Many of the people I talk to hate their commute but wouldn’t want to live in this area for a number of reasons: some want more land, some have family they want to be near, others actually think Newton is too suburban. So even if we added a substantial amount of housing here in Newton, you may be surprised that everyone isn’t jumping at the chance to move to Newton.
I hope folks realize that the oldest millennials are pushing 40 now. Many of us – myself included! – have kids in NPS already. My oldest is ten years old. So even younger millennials either have kids or are looking to settle down soon.
You are correct @MMQC, which is also I specifically avoided that term in my comment, and I do not believe that Northland is trying to target (near) 40 year old millennials in their plan.
If I recall, it was young professionals, retirees and divorcées. That’s a whole 1/3rd of their target demographic as most of you all have agreed would not select Newton as their desired residence.
So again, why our Mayor and many not the City Council think this is a good idea!?!?!
“young professionals, retirees and divorcées” That is funny. Code for minimal # of additional school age children
Not my “code” @Claire, but rather Northland’s pitch. Yet even still, they plan on committing $1.5M to the “expansion” of Countryside for the added students they KNOW that NND will generate – just like Avalon did.
NO ISSUES at all with more kids, but any plan for density needs to take that into consideration. The MA Dept of Education shows it costs Newton about $18.5k per student, per year. So effectively Northland’s $1.5m pays for about 80 students for one year. Variables such as these need to be negotiated into the project, and not simply brushed aside because some Councilor swoons over the green space in the design.
Independent Man made my point. He has people commuting from Worcester. That’s rough.
But, think for a moment why the businesses are moving into such high rent offices in downtown Boston? On former swampland that will soon become swampland again ( climate change ). What tax incentives has Boston been providing? And, why have they put the burden of “workforce housing” ( sounds like dormitories to me) on the adjacent suburbs? Is this really a smart long term move if the area is going to be flooded in 30 years? Sure they’re making the buildings more flood proof by putting the utilities in the second floor….but that doesn’t help the employees walking on the street! seems short sighted.
Rick,
But Greg says we need to provide MORE Newton housing for those soon to be water submerged or swamped workforce locales?
I’d ask Greg, how is this good in terms of global warming and rising sea levels?
The short of it is that Newton (and other suburbs that have taken up the challenge of our “regional housing crisis”) are paying for the city of Boston’s commercial growth (I would argue Cambridge’s as well) without reaping the economic benefits associated with said commercial growth. We are getting the short end of the stick.
Building residential housing does not pay for itself (in tax revenues). Building commercial structures pays for itself (in tax revenues). YAY to Boston/Cambridge … too bad to Newton, etc. (There should have been an overall wealth-sharing/cost-sharing agreement negotiated into whatever the regional housing agreement that Mayor Fuller signed on to.)
For those with access to the NYT here is a fascinating (well I think it is) satellite analysis with “before and after” shots of areas that have been developed in the past decade including Boston. Regardless of the ongoing development discussions it’s safe to say that “open space” continues to decline throughout the country.
A Decade of Urban Transformation, Seen From Above
https://nyti.ms/2StOkbL