General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Why should anyone pay for anything more than a 10 minute walk away from them? Because we're adults and we live in society, that's why.
This call is for you: I have downtown Lynn on the line, and they want the Blue line extended from Wonderland. What do I say to them? "Yes, underground will pay for it, as long as you're in Society?" Hold on, that's the South Coast calling for their billion too. Hmm, maybe we need some better criteria....
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Here's my propsed criteria for awarding new transit projects: While the state will use a New $ / New Rider calculation, towns will be credited with 1 rider worth of ridership for every constructed-but-vacant housing unit and 2 for each unbuilt, allowed-by-right housing unit right within a 1/4 mile walk of the proposed facility.

As a state we need to be encouraging:
1) Transit use
2) More housing near transit
3) More home construction

Frankly, Somerville has viewed the GLX mostly as a windfall / lifestyle-improver for current inhabitants of current housing units.

Compare this with Arlington VA which added something like 50,000 new housing units when WMATA's Orange Line came to town--adding construction jobs and keeping housing prices moderate and giving a dynamic workforce a place to live. They did it in a kind of 12 story (1 block diameter around the station) 4 story (2nd block), 3story-garden (3rd block) "taper" that meant that by the time you were 4 blocks away, the neighborhoods were unchanged, but at the dense cores you got the kind of *real* economic devleopment that $1b of transit should stimulate.

Construction jobs (buliding Kendall Sq or Alewife-style), and offices for businesses and housing for wage-earners..Now THAT's why people far from the GLX should want to pay for it.

Lining the pockets of the landlords of a handful of three-flats and a few shabby two-storey buildngs? (the Davis Sq, story, really) is not the kind of local response the State should be looking for.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I like it. Except maybe credit it per bedroom instead of per unit.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I agree that Alexandria is the model, but how do we make it happen? Put another way, why didn't this happen with our own Orange Line in Roxbury, JP, and Malden?
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I agree that Alexandria is the model, but how do we make it happen? Put another way, why didn't this happen with our own Orange Line in Roxbury, JP, and Malden?

Well slowly but surely its happening..Around Wellington new developments have sprung up (not on the same level as Arlington VA), Assembley square in Somerville (hopefully it becomes what is planned), and i believe there are some big developments in the works in Roxbury that will provide increased ridership.

I'm not sure about this but it seems as though planning and expanding rail in the DC would by much easier simply due to the way the area was built..I.E grid system.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

But don't forget also that there's in-built demand in the DC suburbs for high rise residences and condos adjacent to transit, given the legislated height limit in the district itself. Davis, Union or Forest Hills here can more legitimately claim to be low-rise authentic neighborhoods on the inner-periphery of a high-rise CBD. I'm not saying this to defend the way things typically go here, but I do suggest there's an instructive difference between the regions.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I agree that Alexandria is the model, but how do we make it happen? Put another way, why didn't this happen with our own Orange Line in Roxbury, JP, and Malden?

Massachusetts towns, being small and compact compared to Counties are bad at thinking about people who are new and different from whomever lives there now. They usually have just the 1 high school and 1 low-rise "center" and 40 years ago, 1 hospital. And a homogenous housing stock no more variant than single, 2-flat and 3-flat. New high rises would, by definition, be filled with "outsiders" and people who choose to live differently--aliens--and people who are definitely *not* represented at Town Meeting. They are also bad at planning and zoning because they lack the will to make winners and losers and the best they can do is push the town dump to the border with a neighboring town (usually Woburn ;-)

Meanwhile, in suburban Virginia, everyone is from someplace else in America, drawn to the capital in waves since the 1930s, and they don't(didn't) have a rigid sense of what their town should be and the County was too big to ever try to impose one. If some newcomers want single-family, that's ok. If some want high-rises, home owners have been known to band with their neighbors and sell out to developers together and move on. The jurisdictions are also county-level, and so the county administers 5 to 10 high schools or more. Somewhere was a natural place for a real downtown with tall buildings. A 5-person county council also doubled as the zoning commission and made a master plan for 30 square miles.

Arlington MA and Arlington VA offer powerful contrasts (they are both the source of my nickname, having lived in both).

Arlington (Town) MA is just 5 square miles. It can't even figure out that Alewife could accommodate high rises in East Arlington. In classic New England style, though, Cambridge chose to mass its "undesireable" uses (public housing towers, WR Grace chemicals, and now tall buildings) butting up against the Arlington line. Today Arlington can't figure out who those people were who didn't bring the Red Line to Town and yet they aren't self aware enough to see that it is pretty much the same people (them) who today won't take the Town to the Red Line by upzoning Alewife. From 1970 to 2010 population declined 20% (from 53k to 42k)

Meanwhile Arlington (County) VA is 26 square miles and insisted that its Orange Line come right down the spine of town (not the median of I-66). They Bulldozed Clarendon Blvd "Haussmann-style" parallel to the existing Wilson Blvd to solidify their grid (which got griddy alphabetical names in the 1930s during the first wave of new deal /WWII growth) and buried the Orange Line under Clarendon Blvd and upzoned everything around it, and yes, essentially added 30% to the housing stock of the county from 1970 to 2010 (population grew much less because household size collapsed, but population rose 16% from 178k to 208k)
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

The North End reaches 170 dwelling units per net acre without high rise buildings. That's easily more than enough to provide high ridership.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Massachusetts towns, being small and compact compared to Counties are bad at thinking about people who are new and different from whomever lives there now.

I challenged some folks at a local meeting about why they were so afraid of "density." The only non-FUD arguments that came up were "well we want to protect our free street parking" and "the utilities can't support it." The first is invalid of course, the city doesn't owe them public land, but they can make political noise about the freebies. The second I believe is invalid as well, since the fixed cost of building utilities is the significant factor, not the marginal cost of adding another customer, which is minimal. And of course, sprawl resulting from low density requires yet more utilities to be laid out, costing even more.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

The North End reaches 170 dwelling units per net acre without high rise buildings. That's easily more than enough to provide high ridership.
You're right, but it has propinquity (people walking to work in the Financial District) even if it doesn't have parking. For the Station Landings of the world (which I think is pretty good Transit Oriented Development), you're going to get structured parking and 8 stories. Oh well.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

That's why it's also important to have elimination of minimum parking requirements. Especially near transit stations!
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

That's why it's also important to have elimination of minimum parking requirements. Especially near transit stations!

I don't understand why minimums even exist. If there TRULY isn't enough parking, then no one will live there and the developer is fucked. Nobody loses except the idiot who didn't provide enough.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

My understanding is that minimum parking requirements were put in place to protect existing street curb parking spaces.

It's a supply and demand problem, and the solution that was chosen by many cities was to force supply to go up instead of having prices go up, or leaving a choice for developers to make. The BTD just reads numbers out of a book drawn up by some Urban Renewal pushers 40 years ago and goes with them. 1.5 spaces per unit! 2 spaces per 1000 sq ft of office! 2 spaces per 1000 sq ft of tavern! And nobody dares question them, even though the numbers are suspiciously round, and BTD has all the motive in the world to promote automobile usage.

In residential neighborhoods, local residents pressure their politicians to ensure that they get free or super cheap curb parking at the city's expense, and then viciously protect it against newcomers. You can read it in plenty of articles, and I've heard it in plenty of meetings I've attended where the issue comes up.

It's a totally bonkers situation. In order to reserve a small piece of the public commons for themselves, people are willing to sacrifice the economic vitality of their neighborhood. It's just one of those issues for which rationality flies out the window.

Also, I should add that bank loan officers are still way behind the times, and skittish about approving loans for buildings with lower parking ratios.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

@Arlington, sorry, I thought you were going on some libertarian rant. My mistake. But you're way off-base that the GLX is just a money grab for Somerville landlords. We're already looking at plans on the table for new development around the stations.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

@Arlington

Yet Arlington MA is still denser overall than Arlington VA... sounds like Arlington VA had some catching up to do.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

@Arlington
Yet Arlington MA is still denser overall than Arlington VA... sounds like Arlington VA had some catching up to do.
In resident population density, they're now about the same, but consider that Arlington VA also provides a place of employment for 200,000 people (claiming more office space than "downtown" Boston) and its open space includes an aiport (1 sq mile) a national cemetary (1 sq mile) many square miles of freeway (I-395/95/66).

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/data_maps/profile/file69129.pdf

Arlington VA massed its uses by transit...and so still manages to have large stretches that look a lot like Arlington MA.
@Arlington, sorry, I thought you were going on some libertarian rant. My mistake. But you're way off-base that the GLX is just a money grab for Somerville landlords. We're already looking at plans on the table for new development around the stations.
I'd say I'm guy who believes in both progressive public works and market-allocation mechanisms.

Back to the MBTA, we (as a state) should only shower capital projects on communities interested in actually growing, housing and employing (e.g. Assembly Square) not just swimming in piles of other people's money (Hingham/Greenbush). So these plans for GLX Somerville: how tall are the new buildings?

[Edit] Actually, considering the state lets places like Scituate/Greenbush get away with taking a pile of money and then *not* swimming in it, Somerville is 1 step ahead in that they'd actually use it, but 1 step behind where I'd want them to be in commiting to build up around it as they have done at Assembly Sq.
 
Last edited:
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I am a relatively new resident to somerville, but i think there are plans for further upzoning around some of the sqs. Ball square has a 4-5 story condo building under construction, and there is still lots of places for infill in many- an even around porter and davis still.

But Davis/porter is super dense despite the lack of 12 story buildings- and if you are going to the T at any time in the morning or after noon the stations have a strong continuous flow from all directions. I think the rest of somerville would have the same flow and continued infill.

I don't have the time to do it, but it would be interesting to see the number of boardings at Porter and Davis vs the new stations in downtown arlington. I bet the are close even when you consider that porter and davis are not employment hubs by any means.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I'm less concerned about height and more concerned about infill and new construction on dormant industrial sites.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Back to the MBTA, we (as a state) should only shower capital projects on communities interested in actually growing, housing and employing (e.g. Assembly Square) not just swimming in piles of other people's money (Hingham/Greenbush). So these plans for GLX Somerville: how tall are the new buildings?

Most of Hingham (or at least a VERY vocal minority in Hingham) didn't want the Greenbush. Particularly because a lot of people who were interested in transit were already taking the ferry. So getting town like that to upzone is almost impossible. Right?
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I wonder if the Arlington to Arlington comparison is appropriate for a discussion of Somerville. Somerville is already significantly more dense than either location. To me the issue supporting GLX is that the corridor achieved high density without proper transit support. This line brings an efficiency that should have been there long ago. The argument that we should only build in locations that are planning a density surge leaves out good transit options to places that have already arrived at a high density. My hope for GLX beyond just better transit is that it might promise better distribution of employment. Every transit line needs jobs along the route, so that people use it in both directions and de-board at intermediate stops. That matters more than how many people live near a particular stop.

But as I said before, I do like the Arlington (VA) model, and would like to see some of that happening here. Lets not punish Somerville though, just because it already has high density and therefore likely won't increase it much with GLX.
 

Back
Top