F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,196
- Reaction score
- 9,002
The only deep, dark blue on the density map around Neponset and Adams is a block or two of Train Street and Agawam Street. That area is only about 1/10 mile closer to your proposed Neponset Station than it is to Fields Corner Station.
I don't think anyone would propose rapid transit here if there wasn't already a rail line running through it (for example, this idea comes up with some frequency even though Glendale Sq in Everett, to name one, is a much more dense, transit dependent, and transit ridership-generating neighborhood).
I don't think one should confuse the presence of a railroad right of way with the need for rapid transit service. Its an easy way to analyze the world, but not an intelligent one. (although with my poor eyesight, this view does remind me a little bit of Central Square Cambridge: http://goo.gl/maps/9MybN)
The only reason there wasn't a stop in the first place was because the Braintree Branch was intended as a long-haul replacement for commuter and RR tracks that were expected to be outright abandoned. That is not the case anymore. Now, I agree that this shouldn't be done until the Red Line is resignaled for tighter headways and to fix the flow problems downtown. But once that's done an infill works and works well. An immediate influx of +2000 minimum daily boardings is a significant spike and significant amount of new revenue that in turn cascades throughout the system when those same folks pay again for the return trip.
Of course, I'm not going to convince you of this because you had your mind made up about the transit worthiness of a middling-income, residential-only neighborhood well before you looked at a single data point. As evidenced by your first comment about TOD "redevelopment" for millionaire developers being the only compelling reason to make a new investment in transit nodes. And applying the same logic to the worthiness of the existing Ashmont Branch neighborhood stops while on the other hand grouping the Braintree Branch's smallest-ridership and far-and-away least dense stop, Wollaston, in the "worthy" category. Don't take this criticism the wrong way because I'm not trying to be mean-spirited here. But you telegraphed your value judgement about the qualitative worthiness of Dorchester's demographics on first post. Heat maps and density data points are not relevant to an argument rooted in demographic profiles and constituencies. Those are circuitous semantics that don't speak to the crux of the point you're arguing: which is not about density.
I would argue that's overly simplistic and also not-very-intelligent way of looking at transit. Because every neighborhood and every station citing has has unique and nuanced needs. That's a different, and wholly legitimate, thread altogether. But...please...clean up your argument a little bit. Is it about the raw density? Or is it about emphasizing transit around mixed development and redevelopment opportunities and de-emphasizing it around built-up places with a unilateral development skew? Cite supporting facts accordingly, but don't transpose one argument's set for the other's.