New Massachusetts MBTA Zoning Law

https://slate.com/business/2022/01/mass ... ansit.html

Build up or pay up.

That is the message Massachusetts is sending to 175 cities and suburbs in the Boston area, as a bill passed last year to boost housing production begins to take effect. Almost every jurisdiction in eastern Massachusetts, from the New Hampshire border to Worcester to the Cape Cod Canal, will have to do its part zoning for 344,000 new units of as-of-right multifamily housing—or lose access to some state grant programs. That means allowing apartments in many tony subdivisions currently reserved for single-family homes.

This is likely not going to fly well with many Commonwealth residents and town officials, what are your thoughts on this?

My question to you is what does this have to do with the Mbta at all? I don’t see the connection here between what you wrote and the Mbta. I know there’s housing along some of its routes, but I still don’t get the point you are trying to get across.

Maybe I should have quoted this from the article too, but I linked the article with the intention that it would be read.

The mandate applies to places served by or adjacent to stations of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the state agency that operates the buses and trains that fan out of Boston. The so-called MBTA communities include fishing towns, postindustrial cities, and rural outposts. But the highest burden falls on Boston’s bedroom suburbs, such as Quincy and Newton, whose excellent transit infrastructure is compromised by complicated and exclusionary zoning rules.

So as you can see, this mandate is only for cities and towns that get MBTA service, and it is going to impact areas with more MBTA service greater than it will areas with less MBTA service.

Here is another article that includes a map of the communities that will be affected by the new law, as well as some more information...
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2022/01/13 ... r-t-stops/

(i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre… and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.

15 units per acre isn't exactly highrise density. I grew up in a one-family house on an eight of an acre in Roslindale, and there were plenty of 2-family houses on similar lots on the same street. Any town could handle this by allowing two-family houses on 1/8 acre lots or three-family houses on 1/5 acre lots. Or rows of 7 or 8 townhouses on opposite sides of an acre lot with a bit of a back yard in between. Of course that would mean rezoning a bigger area. I wonder how many cities/towns will try to comply by allowing a couple big apartment buildings right by train/transit stations or bus stops. I wonder if towns could comply partly by allowing apartments over stores in existing business districts?

A problem with transit oriented development seen from time to time is luxury and/or expensive housing units nearest the transit station which limited the number of lower cost or lower rent units available for persons more likely to be transit dependent.

To combat the above, make available more units altogether, and perhaps reduce the impact on town traffic, the development might provide no parking spaces for the least expensive, or maybe for any of, the housing units.

I'm with you completely Alan! I believe "Transit Oriented Development" should have NO parking!

Unfortunately, we do have to deal with the fact that after 8+ decades of car-oriented development, in most places you're still going to need one even if you can walk to the train to go to work.

The very purpose of TOD is to undo the atrocity that was made common in North America over the last 8 decades, If it couldn't do that then it would never have reached the popularity and recognition it has because there would be no point to it.

As has been mentioned, it will be very interesting to see how some cities/towns respond. There's already been some City Council debate in Newton, with some city councilors openly considering forfeiting the grant funds in order to avoid compliance. I expect that to be common across a lot of wealthy towns - essentially buying their way out of dealing with it.

You can see the impact of post-WW2 zoning changes (when the suburbanization craze swept the nation, and most jurisdictions effectively ruled out anything other than single-family housing in almost all areas. I'm most familiar at a street by street level with the near western suburbs (Watertown, Belmont, Arlington, etc), but in many of those areas you can see that within 2-5 blocks of a former streetcar line (Mt Auburn, Trapelo/Belmont St, Mass Ave) you have solid streets of duplexes and triple deckers, sometimes with small apartment buildings thrown in, and then 4-6 blocks out it suddenly changes to all single family. You can almost feel where the new development style changed over.

I have no statistics to back this up, but I have to imagine that if my current hometown (Belmont) allowed at least duplexes by right (or a certain minimum number of units based on lot square footage) anywhere in town, you could probably increase the town's population by 20-30% once owners act on that. That's before you look into doing anything more creative (allowing substantially larger buildings along high-frequency bus routes or near the rail stations, redeveloping low-density commercial areas into multi-story mixed use, housing over retail, etc. At a time when we're dealing with an affordable housing crisis and climate change, it's almost criminal that so much of this and many other towns that are only 7-10 miles from downtown are such low density.

Eliminating parking requirements can do wonders for increasing unit density, especially as you get very close to stations. Even just simply allowing creative arrangements (like unbundling parking space rental from apartment rentals - you want a space, it's not tied to your unit, it's an extra cost) can do wonders for allowing housing developments to go in with less parking, and creating more affordable housing for those who choose to go car-free.

If they are going to eliminate parking requirements, then they should also prohibit overnight parking and resident parking permits. Or, like Tokyo, require proof of parking space when registering a car.

Another grossly unfair Massachusetts law, designed to benefit real estate developers. First, Boston alone is exempted from this law. Why? Second, this law doesn't apply to any of the other RTAs in the state. Why? The article states that there is no by-right multifamily zoning in Newton, none, zip. This is a lie; https://newtonmagis.maps.arcgis.com/app ... 25202b85c3. Weston and Wellesley are required to make huge percentage increases in housing, yet Weston has no sewer system (apparently except for Regis college being connected to the MWRA). Wellesley uses well water for some of their water supply, which is increasingly contaminated by human development. This is very confusing - there are no direct links to the law, no highlighting of changes to the law, the laws itself are deliberately confusing and complicated, and the "implementation guidelines" are vague and confusing. Increasing residential development density always drives up taxes for the existing residents which is one of the reasons that folks oppose zoning changes.

The one thing I do like is the prohibition of "55+" development. Towns and developers should not be allowed to discriminate by age, other than possibly for subsidized elderly housing.

Oh, and what is ironic is most of the suburbs near subway or light-rail systems were developed as streetcar suburbs, designed to work hand in hand with public transportation, and that the population density was sufficient for profitable operation of the transit lines.

Especially where residences are permitted above storefronts, residents should pay the parking meters in the same fashion as everyone else.

Sheltered bus stops and rental bike/scooter docks and package delivery zones should take precedence over resident parking.

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 4:56 pm Another grossly unfair Massachusetts law, designed to benefit real estate developers. First, Boston alone is exempted from this law. Why?

Boston isn't exempted by design, so much as it is by existing development patterns. The entire city already meets the new standards, but I agree, it does look strangely excluded by the maps going around.

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 5:01 pm Oh, and what is ironic is most of the suburbs near subway or light-rail systems were developed as streetcar suburbs, designed to work hand in hand with public transportation, and that the population density was sufficient for profitable operation of the transit lines.

Yup, It is. I don't get it, how is it that those were no longer profitable?
Or was it basically, once they sold once, they were no longer a profit generator, and thus needed to keep building out more, to get a return on investment.

>how is it that those were no longer profitable?

Ask Goodyear, Standard Oil, and General Motors.

The whole National City Lines saga was a side effect which has been vastly overblown. Streetcars became unprofitable because of a perfect storm of extraneous circumstances affecting cities all over the US and Canada. NCL was not involved in Boston, New York, Washington, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Francisco, and others, nor did it have any presence in Canada, where, with the exception of Toronto, every city from Halifax to Victoria which had streetcars in 1945 had lost them by 1960 (maybe a little later in Montreal and Ottawa?). I think of NCL as being like a surfer who sees a wave forming in the distance and knows that if he gets up on his board the wave will carry him right in to the beach; but that wave was going to form whether the surfer was there or not.

ScratchyX1's last sentence has it in a nutshell: the profit was in the buying up of undeveloped land -- literally dirt cheap, building streetcar lines to make it salable, and selling the building lots -- a one-shot deal.