CantabAmager
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 0
Cantab's point about total population per census tract is irrelevant. It's the pop density that matters.
If you were looking for a corridor to implement rapid transit and could only choose two of the following criteria to guide your decision which would you choose?
1) overcrowded high frequency bus routes
2) high population density in the corridor
3) high population density over a larger area defined by municipal boundaries that bear no relationship to travel patterns
I would think you'd base it on 1 and 2, but since those aren't winning justifications for glx, its supporters typically resort to #3
Again, your point earlier was that Somerville's statisical position as the densest town in New England was that the industrial areas in Everett and Chelsea skew their pop densities lower. Somerville is the 15th densest city with 10,000+ resident in the US, if that's not good enough for you, I don't know what else you want. My point was arguing that you're claim that Chelsea is denser and I was using tracts (which are relatively equal in size across urban New England locations). Not precise, but it gives you an indication of whether you're claim was true or not. And your's wasn't.
So 1, 2, 3 all apply. Whether or not you accept that is on you. And FWIW, Davis-Kendall is the largest origin-destination pairing on the Red Line that doesn't have the Financial District as a destination. Cambridge-Somerville is a statistically and historically relevant commute pattern. I'm not sure what your argument is against GLX?