dannikilljoy t1_jd86i85 wrote
Reply to comment by oneMadRssn in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs
Yeah a big problem with the whole MBTA communities definition is it includes towns that don't have an MBTA stop in or within a mile of the town, much less half a mile.
ex. Stow, MA to which the nearest MBTA stop (South Acton, Fitchburg Line) is ~1 mile from the town border. So communities like Stow literally can not comply with this law.
tjrileywisc t1_jd8vff0 wrote
This is accounted for already - search for 'MBTA communities with limited or no transit station area' in this page-
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/section-3a-guidelines
The short answer seems to be 'wherever it makes sense, just meet the contiguity and density requirements'.
dannikilljoy t1_jd8z435 wrote
Well it's good they addressed it at least, though requiring towns not directly serviced by the MBTA to zone for that kinda misses the whole point imo.
Like if we want to make outlying towns zone for more dense housing that's fine. I just want them to do it in a way that makes sense.
three-ple t1_jd9etlo wrote
And I think the idea is that towns near commuter train stops can still handle higher density as many people drive (or bike) to the commuter line station and ride in from there. So its a fairly smart way to increase density while still enabling people to not drive-commute long distances.
dannikilljoy t1_jdcqi4n wrote
Oh the base idea is smart, I'm just hung up on the unreliability of the MBTA and the lack of any parking infrastructure in the NIMBY towns that actually host commuter rail stops.
Like the point of adding these denser zones seems to be to enable shorter commutes, but if the closest commuter rail station doesn't have enough parking to make commuting to it viable for those who live too far to walk or bike, all this does is increase the number of cars heading into the city.
​
tldr; higher density requirements good, but need to mandate infrastructure improvements to support increased density first
three-ple t1_jdcsr20 wrote
Chicken and egg. If you always make it a requirement to "have everything ready at once", you'll never get anywhere. No single policy or law is going to get it all done at once.
Same argument could be said about parking.
"Why do we need more parking at the commuter rail station? It's not fully most days already?"
You have to start somewhere and then work on the other pieces. The housing/zoning law is a start. I'm all for legislation/policy that makes the MBTA more effective across the network. Let's see it! Is there anything in the works now?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments