three-ple t1_jd9etlo wrote on March 22, 2023 at 7:48 PM

Reply to comment by dannikilljoy in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs

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 on March 23, 2023 at 1:46 PM

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 on March 23, 2023 at 2:02 PM

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?