dannikilljoy

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

1

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.

1

dannikilljoy t1_jd86i85 wrote

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.

1