63 Comments

1. 

   Alec Wilson on September 4, 2021 at 7:43 am

   Great post.

   Climate change is an existential issue, and when used to help another agenda (density/housing) it’s a massive disservice to getting to a solution before our planet is destroyed.

   Technology, by way of clean energy, and a shift to electric vehicles are the keys, and housing is a rounding error in that context.

   Housing is a divisive, personal, emotional issue, and those who care about the climate should stop dragging climate change into that discussion, which ultimately makes people more resistant to changes we need there.

   People can post whatever they want on the positive climate impact of more density and it’s irrelevant. Housing does not solve climate change on its own, not even close. Technology is the solution, irrespective of the housing situation.

2. 

   Alec Wilson on September 4, 2021 at 7:44 am

   Great post.

   Climate change is an existential issue, and when used to help another agenda (density/housing) it’s a massive disservice to getting to a solution before our planet is destroyed.

   Technology, by way of clean energy, and a shift to electric vehicles are the keys, and housing is a rounding error in that context.

   Housing is a divisive, personal, emotional issue, and those who care about the climate should stop dragging climate change into that discussion, which ultimately makes people more resistant to changes we need there.

   People can post whatever they want on the positive climate impact of more density and it’s irrelevant. Housing does not solve climate change on its own, not even close. Technology is the solution, irrespective of the housing situation.

3. 

   Keith on September 4, 2021 at 7:54 am

   Wow. Great piece. And interesting. The results here make intuitive sense on reflection. Mandates make the difference since ALL are involved and not just small pockets.

   Hoping the shift to all electric is incentivized and the infrastructure to build these cars (well) – and don’t forget the big trucks. Battery tech and resource attainment is a big one. Needs to be supported through investment and smart policy decisions. Also hoping the infrastructure to support the actual cars, such as charging, also gets the investment. Most importantly here, car companies need to show that 100% electric cars kick tail.

   Also need to work to make the production cleaner, recycling the cars and battery cleaner, and, and very importantly, the production of the electricity cleaner. All will take a lot of work but it makes sense that this would be far far far more effective at reducing emissions than some towns getting 2x (or whatever) denser near their centers.

4. 

   Keith on September 4, 2021 at 7:57 am

   Yea, I see the housing issue as being 99% affordability. Connection to town centers relates to creating convenience, vibrancy, and limiting cars to limit strain on are infrastructure — not much about emissions. All in my opinion.

5. 

   Lisa on September 4, 2021 at 7:59 am

   Thanks for posting. This whole concept of “Transit Oriented Development” never made any sense to me. The good news on the affordable housing front is that Biden announced yesterday that the he committed the federal govt to build 200,000 units. Not enough but an impressive start.

6. 

   Bugek on September 4, 2021 at 8:44 am

   Banning fossil fuel cars from parking on newton streets more than 2 hours(non metered) would help the environment more than any high density housing.

   Enforcement would be easily. Parking officier will scan for non EV license plates, the fines used to build more solar panels.

   Since we have “immediate threat”.. where’s the courage?

   Or is the threat only real if the solution is high density housing?

   Even banning any plastic water/soda bottles in Newton would do more than housing.

7. 

   Nathan Phillips on September 4, 2021 at 9:49 am

   Bob, thank you for raising this hugely important issue, even though I take issue with your takeaway for several reasons:

   – The RI study was a projection, not “results”. Those projections, like the MA 2030 roadmap, depend on the assumptions that drive them. With VMT these assumptions basically hardwire the result. As you said, “[VMT] had inconsequential benefits for air quality, since they involved just very small fractions of motor vehicles or the commuting public.” In other words, VMT reduction is of minor consequence when we assume minor reductions in VMT.
   With the 2030 Road Map, the apparently small impact of VMT emissions is 100% due to the very small predicted VMT reduction. In fact, there is no reduction at all. The report assumes that VMT “stabilized around 56 billion miles per year, despite 7% growth in anticipated fleet size from today.” In other words, we’re going to build and drive *more* cars, but we’ll offset that with a compensation of less driving per vehicle so that we’ll just keep the status quo more or less on total emissions due to VMT. Of course the growth in the vehicle fleet means more roads and parking.

   VMT is actually a “what you see is what you get” impact on emissions. The simple math is, if we reduce VMT by 25%, that drives a 25% reduction in our carbon emissions. And electrifying your ride is in essence another way of saying you’ve just reduced your VMT by 100%, due to gasoline VMT, that is. Same goes for trip reduction resulting from compact, transit-oriented development. So this is not about how strong a lever VMT is; it’s about what we consider politically possible. This is a whole other conversation about whether Newton can or can’t do what other cities have done in this regard, what is exceptional and essential about our city and us, or not.

   – We absolutely must electrify the transportation sector, but the impact of mining and building 2-ton steel boxes alone has to be considered, and these life cycle impacts aren’t included in either of these two climate projections (as far as I know). And it goes beyond carbon. Right now, Paiute tribal members are blocking mining access to the largest lithium deposit in North America, in Nevada, which would be used to make the batteries for EV’s. So yes, electrify transportation, but don’t do it at the expense of Tribal and human rights, and do everything we can to create more choices and options for people to move around, other than driving cars.

   – Addressing climate is about more than carbon emissions. All the space we allocate to cars is paved, and in addition to driving the heat island effect, we have seen how vulnerable to flash flooding we are with so much impermeable surface area. The irony was seeing the SUV swept away by floodwaters at Cheesecake Brook, taking out, of all things, a pedestrian bridge.

   – Providing more mobility options to more people will have a directly beneficial – and proportional- impact on our climate, and actually give the people who really benefit from driving – our seniors and others with mobility challenges – an easier time driving and parking. My 89-year old Mom is an example of someone who is still fit and able to drive, and when those of us who can, can shift to a different travel mode to free up our streets and parking spaces or our elders and others who truly sometimes need a car (myself included), it’s better for everyone.

   – E-bikes, e-trikes, e-cargobikes e-podcars exist, are scaling rapidly (despite COVID) and *are* EV’s. A single Volvo XC40 battery can power 150 e-bikes, while these tools take up a fraction of the road and parking space. Of course, “not everyone” can or wants to use them, but we need to make it safe for people who want to reduce car dependency to be able to use these solutions.

8. 

   MaryLee on September 4, 2021 at 10:13 am

   Bob,

   Thanks for your data-driven observations

   MaryLee

9. 

   Stephen Grody on September 4, 2021 at 11:56 am

   Bob-

   Kudos to a quant. With all sincere and due respect, and notwithstanding that we all can do better, nevertheless …

   The causal drivers (2/3rds of a pun intended) of actual VMT were not, it seemed, the subject of the policies EPA pursued or put in place. The topology of resource demand and production networks (steady state and ignoring variability shocks) were necessarily allowed to remain unfettered … the context of those 1980s being characterizable as a period of de-industrialization and de-populating of the Boston and Providence MSAs … as Federal tax-and-expenditure policies intentionally transferred money and investment from the Northeast corridor and Upper Mid-West into growing the country in the West and Southwest, the economy’s money wasn’t going into restructuring why people were driving.

   Now, with a density of 4,688 people/sq.mi., Newton is significantly more dense than Boston suburbs similarly situated at 11 miles out from the SMSA center [being the 45th densest SMSA 11 mi. distance ring in the USA, Boston-averaged at 2,751 people per square mile of land area]. One would have to look to the Philadelphia SMSA (1/3rd larger in aggregate than Boston) for an equivalent same-collar density as Newton’s. But the collar of Newton’s location in Greater Boston, is more similar to in:
   * Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor (OH) — 44th @3,004 pop/sq.mi.,
   * Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta (GA) — 46th @2,654,
   * Columbus (OH),
   * New Haven-Milford (CT),
   * Ogden-Clearfield (UT), or
   * Louisville/Jefferson County (KY-IN) — @2,531
   than the numbers suggest it is to Providence’s 77th ordinal position with a density of @1,787 pop/sq.mi.. Source: US Census (2010). Unlike Philadelphia, none in that peer group enjoy a rail service tied to the urban core, similar to Newton.

   Further, I conjecture, the composition of the VMT for Newton differs in mix proportions from Providence in that non-Commercial miles (466.3 Million) significantly overshadow Commercial miles (40.7 Million) [n.b.: excludes 64.3 Million VMT not classified].

   Lastly, an aside … one commenter incorrectly stated (or implied (or over-generalized)) that housing doesn’t matter when reducing greenhouse gas emissions so to address climate change. While I don’t disagree that arguments in favor of one public policy (housing, in the commenter’s case) or another ought to stand on their own feet and the merits, nevertheless the old and energy inefficient housing stock in Newton is a needs-improvement focus of Newton’s 30-Year Climate Action Plan [2019]. That plan does not conflate the need and approaches for increasing efficiency in existing housing with other potential objectives the City might adopt.

   Thanks for opportunity to chime-in ..

10. 

    Alex Blumenstiel on September 4, 2021 at 2:19 pm

    Interesting. Reminds me of living in Manhattan in the late ’60s and driving or taking the subway out to work in Flushing. Took about 45 to 60 minutes each way (Midtown Tunnel and LIE) and about 1/2 hour to find a parking space back in town after work. The subway took about an hour each way. Then moved to Newton Center and pretty much always took the T to work and back. About 1/2 hour to and from Fenway, if memory serves. So which is better, high-density, Transit-Oriented NYC, or “suburban” car-friendly Newton. Guess it depends on your point of view. But I sure hope I’ll never have to move back to NYC!

11. 

    That parmenter guy on September 4, 2021 at 2:29 pm

    Is high density, transit-oriented/smart-growth really an “essential strategy” for curbing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [from motor vehicles]?

    Yes. The short answer is because not travelling in a motor vehicle less is a greater savings of energy than by travelling in a more efficent motor vehicle, and denser developments enable people to get around without travelling in vehicles. Even in the context of a 100% electric vehicle, there are GHG emissions associated with road construction and maintenance – but that’s a topic for another day.

    Furthermore, if the goal is to address climate change it is counterproductive to focus exclusively on GHG from vehicles, because to do so ignores the singnificant amount of energy use of the building itself, which accounts for almost 40% of energy usage in the united states*, and over 60% of the GHG gas emissions in Newton**.

    In order to research the link between energy use, transportation, and urban development in the context of climate change the federal government created the the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities in or about 2009. The partnership was among the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Environmental Protection Agency. The goal of this partnership was to help improve access to affordable housing, expand transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.

    A key report from this partnership was aptly titled “Location Efficiency and Housing Type: boiling it down to BTUs.”

    This study illustrates two key points about the effect of compact, location efficient development on energy consumption:

    1. A home’s location relative to transportation choices has a large impact on energy consumption. People who live in a more compact, transit-accessible area have more housing and transportation choices compared to those who live in spread-out developments where few or no transportation options exist besides driving. Choosing to live in an area with transportation options not only reduces energy consumption, it also can result in significant savings on home energy and transportation costs.

    2. Housing type is also a very significant determinant of energy consumption. Fairly substantial differences are seen in detached versus attached homes, but the most striking difference is the variation in energy use between single-family detached homes and multifamily homes, due to the inherent efficiencies from more compact size and shared walls among units. Moderate energy-efficient building technologies, such as those qualifying for Energy Star performance, also generate household energy savings that are notable but not as significant as the housing location and type.

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location_efficiency_btu.pdf

    *From the report’s well researched and very well sourced background:
    The contribution of buildings to total energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is significant. Buildings account for approximately 40 percent of domestic energy use, and in 2008 the U.S. residential sector accounted for 21 percent of total CO2 emissions in the country. The pattern in which homes are built and their proximity to transit directly affects their rate of energy consumption and emissions. Preliminary findings from the 2009 National Housing Transportation Survey indicate that households in areas of very high density (5,000 – 9,999 households per square mile) produce about half the emissions of households in areas with very low density (0 – 50 households per square mile). The survey also notes that households very close to transit lines produce about one-fourth the emissions of households without close access to transit.

    ** from the Newton Climate Action Plan – https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/39649/637335412898900000

12. 

    Bob Jampol on September 4, 2021 at 4:01 pm

    Lots to think about: thanks, Bob, for a thoughtful piece. Let’s consider high-density projects with a significant percentage of affordable units (50% minimum- 20% solves nothing) as a possible solution to the chronic shortage of affordable homes and apartments in Greater Boston. Apparently, government has no interest in building affordable housing. But it can both require such units and subsidize them. Otherwise, with housing in short supply and prices climbing, why should developers cater to any but the wealthiest? That is where we are now: McMansion Land.

    Subsidies and mandates; carrots and sticks. If local, regional, and federal authorities stay on the sidelines and leave it all to developers, only the affluent will find homes.

13. 

    Lucia on September 4, 2021 at 6:03 pm

    All the reduction in GHG emissions from The Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP) have been erased by increased vehicle weight (SUVs popularity) and increased driving. https://t4america.org/maps-tools/driving-down-emissions/

14. 

    Jason JH on September 4, 2021 at 8:29 pm

    Great debate! Thank you.

    When we don’t build near transit (and in Newton that often also means near village centers), we are creating so much waste as well as perpetuating classist models for planning:
    – if density isn’t increasing near transit hubs, then it will further out.. which forces less affluent families (vs Newton’s 1.5m median single fam home value) to have longer commutes and increased separation from employment centers
    – when there is more building further out, it is sprawl… cutting down forests
    – when build more <50% AMI housing, those are income levels where the expense of a car is a struggle… proximity to transit is critical

    Helpful Krugman article below on this topic.

    “But building policies in our major cities, especially on the coasts, are almost surely too restrictive. And that restrictiveness brings major economic costs. At a national level, workers are on average moving, not to regions that offer higher wages, but to low-wage areas that also have cheap housing. That makes America as a whole poorer than it would be if workers moved freely to their most productive locations, with some estimates of the lost income running as high as 10 percent.

    Furthermore, within metropolitan areas, restrictions on new housing push workers away from the center, forcing them to engage in longer commutes and creating more traffic congestion.

    So there’s a very strong case for allowing more building in our big cities. The question is, how can higher density be sold politically? The answer, surely, is to package a loosening of building restrictions with other measures. Which is why what’s happening in New York is so interesting.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/opinion/cities-for-everyone.html?referringSource=articleShare

15. 

    Bugek on September 4, 2021 at 9:06 pm

    Jason,

    Of course, the more scalable solution to that specific problem is stop cramming all the jobs into the city and open offices around the suburbs.

    By 2040, most cars will likely be electric so no longer have to depend on MBTA to fix pollution and dont have to worry about everyone fixing affordability within 10 miles of the city

16. 

    Emily Norton on September 4, 2021 at 11:01 pm

    Excellent post, Bob! I think there are reasons to promote smaller housing units close to public transportation, but as you note, reducing ghg emissions is not one of those reasons (or at least not one of the lowest hanging fruit such as electrification, and moving to a plant-based diet). More housing is important for affordability (with subsidies, because the market alone will not create affordable housing) and also because before the end of this century, perhaps long before then, people will have to start moving off the coasts, and they’ll need somewhere to move to.

17. 

    Kathy Pillsbury on September 5, 2021 at 2:33 pm

    I took up Bob’s challenge to point to more recent research.

    The report from 40 years ago that you base your argument on barely looked at the impact of smart growth. (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/our-vision/what-is-smart-growth/)

    None of the tactics that you analyzed 40 years ago related to the distance that people had to drive. They were almost all about getting people out of their cars based on where they already lived – traffic flow management, commuter parking lots, high occupancy vehicle lanes, ride sharing.

    Decreasing the distance people have to travel to work, school or shopping in their own private car is where smart growth comes in. Massachusetts and Newton are failing at this metric.

    The 10-Year Progress Report on Massachusetts’ Global Warming Solutions Act, found that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased 24% between 1990 and 2017 while population grew by only 14%. So, the increase in overall VMT didn’t just happen because there were more people. It increased because people had to drive farther for work, school, shopping… (https://www.mass.gov/doc/gwsa-10-year-progress-report/download)

    Furthermore, while stricter emission standards have reduced GHG emissions from individual cars, the overall emissions from gasoline usage increased in Massachusetts since 1990. This is clearly a move in the wrong direction. (https://www.mass.gov/doc/transportation-sector-technical-report/download)

    Most of the increase in developed land in Eastern Massachusetts has occurred in a wide ring around Boston. This phenomena is really highlighted in the Washington Post in “Where America’s Developed Areas Are Growing,” an analysis of data released by the U.S. Geological Survey this summer. Included in the article is an interactive color-coded map of the U.S. allowing you to look more closely at changes in land development in your area. People have clearly had to move farther away from Boston to find places to live. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/land-development-urban-growth-maps/?utm_source=1)

    Technological fixes alone are not going to get us out of the growing climate catastrophes.

    As you note in the short term, the reduction in emissions from EVs will be have a larger impact on emissions. A switch to EVs can happen more quickly and reductions in the short run are absolutely critical.

    But does this mean that we shouldn’t try to increase options for housing near transit, near our villages, near work, near schools. No.

    Whatever is built now will have an impact over a very long period of time which is exactly why it is critical to take action now on a path towards smarter development and housing.

    Smart growth is a long-term strategy – changes to housing and development take a long time. Smart growth could start having an impact now, but its impact will continue into the future. It is a strategy to help our kids and grandkids.

    The impact of not allowing more people to live in Newton is both environmental and economic and it goes well beyond just the vehicle miles traveled impact.

    When housing gets built farther from Boston, it is much more likely that trees are cut down and open space is taken over to make room for more those homes. New roads need to be built – paving over fields or forests. All this creates more stormwater runoff and reduces the number of trees that help capture carbon for the long term.

    Living farther from work means that much more time driving or sitting in traffic. It increases traffic on both the Pike and Rt. 9 as they come through Newton.

    People are more likely to want/need a second car to get to work or school or the supermarket, when they live farther from other forms of transportation such as the T or express bus service. A second car even if it is an EV increases a family’s consumption of resources and is expensive for a family to own.

    In Newton, new housing could be built in areas where development has already happened, where trees have already been cut down. New development can help us deal with mistakes of the past when streams and wetlands were paved over and built upon.

    New housing could be added within existing housing through conversions or ADUs. New developments could go in areas where there are large unused parking lots such as the proposed project on Beacon St. near Four Corners. Something could be done with the area where the CVS is on Rt. 9 with its large, mostly unused parking lot. Look around Newton and you can see these kinds of opportunities or should I say the potential for these kinds of opportunities if only they were allowed in Newton.

    Here is a sampling newer research. It consistently states the importance of land use and reducing sprawl – sprawl that happens in part because of the limits cities and towns like Newton put on building housing and allowing more people to live in more environmentally friendly locations.

    1) A 2021 study in the academic journal, Atmosphere reviewed many research studies on urban sprawl and climate change. The researchers found “a strong consensus on the negative environmental costs of sprawl.” Sprawl contributes to “climate change directly and indirectly…due to land use, land cover, urban form, and transportation.” (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/5/547)

    2) The Rocky Mountain Institute, an internationally renowned climate change organization this summer wrote specifically about the importance of “changing our zoning laws to allow mixed-income housing in higher-income, urban or walkable neighborhoods to improve climate and equity” stating that “we must reduce vehicle miles traveled by investing in inclusive, complete, compact, transit-oriented communities” as “increases in private car travel have historically outpaced vehicle efficiency improvements to drive increasing carbon emissions.” (https://rmi.org/building-mixed-income-housing-in-wealthy-urban-neighborhoods-can-improve-climate-and-equity/)

    3) A study of development in California, “Right Type, Right Place: Assessing the Environmental and Economic Impacts of Infill Residential Development through 2030” found that an infill-focused housing growth scenario compared with business as usual provided the best outcomes for meeting climate goals while also producing economic benefits for the region and for individual households through lower utility bills and transportation costs. (https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/land-use/right-type-right-place/)

    4) The 2020 study, “The carbon footprint of household energy use in the United States” looked at energy data for over 93 million households. It also used census block data to specifically look at the Los Angeles and Boston areas to identify factors that affected energy use. The researchers found that to reach climate goals set in the Paris Climate Agreement, there would not only be a need for deep energy retrofits and transitioning to low-carbon energy sources but also a need to reduce per capita floor space (build smaller units) and zoning that includes multifamily homes and buildings. (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122)

18. 

    Lucia on September 6, 2021 at 11:41 am

    Thank you Kathy, in Newton our vehicle miles travelled has increased from 20 miles per day in 2015 to 24.7 miles in 2019.

    (Newton’s 2015 & 2019 Population data from US Census Dept. Daily VMT from MassDOT Vehicle Miles Traveled Viewer https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/dataviewers/vmt/)

    Newton household car ownership also increased in that same time from 1.6 to 2.1 (registered vehicles divided by households)

19. 

    Bugek on September 6, 2021 at 1:02 pm

    Kathy,

    Banning all plastic bottle sales in Newton would likely have a greater impact than building more high density housing.

    But somehow its only urgent if the solution involves increasinf developer profits.

20. 

    Kelley Brown on September 6, 2021 at 2:01 pm

    It is important to sort out what sectors and types of activities lead to the greatest amount of GHGs, what policies can address the GHG contributions of these sectors, how effective those policies might be and over what time period, what kind of negative, unintended consequences might result, assessing the short- and long-term political will to implement the policies, and the cost of pursuing one policy versus an alternative one, given limited time, money and attention.

    Complicated, no? And that is just the beginning of the complexity.

    Bob’s exposition is interesting, and it makes a start in resolving these many considerations, but it is not sufficient to support the big conclusion that he draws: that land use policy is not an effective tool to reduce GHG emissions. It is not surprising that command-and-control measures, like catalytic converters or MPG-standards, are more effective – if they are imposed and maintained. Weak efforts to change behavior, like encouraging transit over single-occupancy vehicles, without more muscular efforts, such as individual subsidies/lower fares, improvements to service, and allowing density at existing transit nodes, not surprisingly has a weaker impact on GHG reduction.

    A substantial carbon tax would probably be the most effective and efficient means to reduce GHG emissions in market economies like ours. The problem is that this kind of tax is very unpopular and has no political traction, except among policy elites. The weakening of the political will to implement a tax-based approach like the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) is a current example of this problem.

    As the research that Kathy notes demonstrates, land use policy is an important part of the basket of tools that need to be deployed for a long-term campaign to reduce emissions. We should resist the temptation to make apocalyptic overstatements regarding the GHG reduction benefits of any specific land-use measure (or any policy measure, for that matter), but we should not discard these benefits as part of an overall policy.

21. 

    Nathan Phillips on September 6, 2021 at 7:28 pm

    Kathy – outstanding comment!

22. 

    Peter Bruce on September 6, 2021 at 9:54 pm

    From Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed To Reverse Global Warming
    Editor: Paul Hawken, New York, Penguin, 2017, pp. 222-223.

    Category I
    Rank The most potentially effective solutions Total reduction in CO2-EQ (gigatons)
    1 Refrigerant management 89.74
    2 Wind Turbines 84.6
    3 Reduced Food Waste 70.53
    4 Plant rich diet 66.11
    5 Saving tropical forests 61.23
    6 Educating girls 59.6
    7 Family Planning 59.6
    Total 491.41

    Category II Non-TOD (transit-oriented development) transportation
    26 Electric Vehicles 10.8
    32 More fuel efficient ships w/less friction 7.9
    40 Hybrid and smarter trucks 6.2
    42 More fuel efficient airplanes 5.05
    49 Hybrid cars 4
    63 Telepresence/Teleconferencing 1.99
    Total 35.94

    Category III TOD-related/complete streets
    37 Mass transit 6.57
    54 Walkable cities 2.92
    59 Bike infrastructure 2.31
    66 High-speed rail 1.52
    69 Electric bikes 0.96
    75 Ride-share shuttles/carpooling 0.32
    Total 14.6
    Note: The book analyzed 80 total solutions.

    The statistics above support Bob Burke’s argument that transit-oriented develoment (TOD) is one of the least potent tools for reducing GHGs, and that other measures, especially those aimed at electrifying Newton’s public and private vehicles, should take precedence over it, especially along the commuter rail corridor.

    The stats are from Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed To Reverse Global Warming. Given the uncertainty and time-bound assumptions inevitable in this sort of study, the book is not perfect. But, as a picture painted in broad strokes, it helps us understand the relative salience of different means of curbing GHGs. As you can see, the most effective (Category I) are many times more powerful than the transportation-related ones.

    While the largest contributors to reducing GHGs (Category I) could potentially have about 14 times the impact of the non-TOD transportation solutions (Category II), their impact has about 34 times the potential of that of the TOD-related solutions (Category III), reinforcing Burke’s findings.

    Still, development near transit can be effective if transit supply and demand are adequate. But it’s crucial, for the sake of good policy-making, to note that according to the criteria of the U.S.’ main institute that rates such places, our commuter rail stops in Newtonville and West Newton fail to achieve even the lowest rank of transit-orientedness, given that the commuter rail runs only ~15 trips a day and bus service in the area is also spotty.

    On the other hand, the Green Line, which runs ~100 trips a day, does qualify by that institute’s standards. That its stops in Chestnut Hill, Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, and Waban have thus far been exempt from the sorts of nearby mega-developments underway in Lower Falls (Riverside) and Upper Falls (Northland) or the large developments we’re seeing in Nonantum, Newtonville, and West Newton, points to the class bias of those politicians most avidly pushing TOD. They also live in or represent populations with roughly twice the median income, half the density, and half the proportion of non-whites as places getting the most development. (Compare, for instance these metrics for Waban and Newton Centre versus Upper Falls, Nonantum, and Newtonville’s census tracts in the Bluestone Report.) As such, TOD in Newton, with the likely exception of Riverside, will likely do little to cut GHGs.

    While speaking at separate meetings of the Newtonville Area Council, Zoning and Planning Committee head Deb Crossley and Mayor Fuller objected to prioritizing electrification of residents’ and businesses’ vehicles over TOD. They asserted that this will worsen Newton’s already serious congestion problems. But, they failed to consider the following factors which augur that our normal commuter rush is likely to remain relatively stable and far better than comparable suburbs, even if we de-emphasize TOD, i.e.:

    • That Newton’s population growth has been slowing since 2017, according to the U.S. Census (i.e., even before the pandemic);
    • That it has been growing at about half the rate of neighboring suburbs; and
    • That increasing numbers of businesses and individuals are decentralizing their homes and operations in these pandemic and post-pandemic times. (A Waban Area Council survey found that about half of its residents worked from home several years ago. And, a recent Gallup poll found that 40% of white collar workers forced to work at home by the pandemic would prefer to continue to work there after it.)

    As for improvements on the commuter rail, we can hope, but hope is not a strategy. Even before the pandemic, MBTA officials made it known to us that there would be improvements for the disabled and ramps at our stations, but that improvements in service wouldn’t be forthcoming unless Newton could choke up an additional $150 million to add one or more extra platforms on a side of the tracks not currently used to allow trains coming from opposite directions to pass simultaneously. Also changes in work habits and options created by Uber and Lyft were already pulling large numbers of people out of commuter rail before the pandemic, according to reports in The Boston Globe and by the Pioneer Institute.

    Though “Biden dollars” might create new possibilities for that line, competition for those dollars will be fierce between municipalities and routes, with Newton’s commuter rail having several disadvantages, which make the addition of dual tracks in Newton, essential for major upgrades in service, seem iffy, at best. They are:
    • Newton is the richest city in Massachusetts, and hence not a priority for a state intent on doing more to help the less affluent with transit;
    • Ridership on the commuter rail is hovering around 20-25% of pre-pandemic levels, thus limiting the cost-effectiveness of investing government funds in it; and
    • Commuter rail ridership remains low in wealthier communities but is growing in blue-collar ones. (To the extent that improving Newton’s stations would speed the whole system, and allow greater train speed between, say, Worcester and Boston, there may be a margin of hope for major reforms.)

    As such, to reiterate, the City should prioritize vehicle electrification and, to the extent that it’s warranted by population growth, increase density around Green Line stops. Density from large projects around commuter rail stops should be paused until the state and City are able to fund major station and track changes and until the MBTA greatly upgrades its level of service.

23. 

    MaryLee on September 6, 2021 at 10:33 pm

    Peter, one thing not to lose sight of is that Northland, which creates 800 units, will bus people to the Green Line. Additionally another 550 units at Riverside could feed the Green Line assuming it is truly transit-oriented. And there is a development on Route in Wellesley which will also shuttle residents to the Green Line

24. 

    Emily Norton on September 7, 2021 at 12:41 am

    Peter – I agree with you that if making the Newton commuter rail stops double-sided is viewed as only helping Newton commuters, we are sunk. It is critical that people realize that it would benefit all riders on the entire Worcester Framingham line, as well as additional metrowest commuters who could/would be enticed to start taking the train if it had more reliable and frequent service (which double sided tracks at the 3 Newton stops would enable).

25. 

    Peter Bruce on September 7, 2021 at 2:07 am

    Emily – With home prices in Worcester being a small fraction of what they are here or in Boston, and unemployment in Worcester being twice what it is in Newton, to enable a train, especially a faster electrified Worcester/Boston train, to complete each direction of that route in about 45-50 minutes would allow lots more people in Boston or Newton to find affordable housing to the west, and people in need of better jobs in Worcester to find work in Boston.

    Electrified trains are being discussed seriously and could speed things up a lot, along with the track and platform improvements. But you’re right it needs to be framed in a “think globally act regionally” way.

    Riverside, to MaryLee’s point, would seem to have considerable TOD potential. But my impression is that it takes almost an hour to get to downtown Boston from there on the Green Line, versus considerably less time than that driving, even during rush hour, if you know good shortcuts and listen carefully to the traffic reports. Northland is more problematic in my opinion, even with frequent shuttles which are likely to add an extra 10 minutes or so to the commute to trains which before the pandemic could often be jammed-packed with most people standing, and taking about 45 minutes or more to go downtown at rush hrs. Again, electrification and faster trains could help, along with increasingly flexible work schedules.

26. 

    MaryLee on September 7, 2021 at 8:18 am

    Peter, I was making a different point. Pre-Covid, the Green Line Riverside to Govt Center was pretty much maxed out in terms of capacity at peek hours. Often by the time the train got to Newton Centre it was standing room only and it was still adding volume from Chestnut Hill through Fenway. After that more people were getting off than on. I was very concerned regarding the impact of over the increased ridership for Riverside, Northland and the Wellesley Development. There is also a 24/25 unit development going it at Newton Highlands and at least one more at Waban. So I think that the Green Line is already going to absorb more. The Commuter Rail poses more opportunity.

    All that said, all bets are what post-Covid commuting behaviors will evolve. My office which is at Fenway is still a ghost town and the proposed gradual comeback has been postponed from this Month to at least January and a significant number of employees will be allowed to work remotely, including out of state going forward. The role of TOD will definitely need to be analyzed anew

27. 

    Kathy Pillsbury on September 7, 2021 at 1:09 pm

    For an updated look at the potential impact of different strategies, take a look at Project Drawdown’s Table of Solutions on the web. As technology and conditions have changed so to have the rankings. (https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions)

    Another point to consider is that their list of solutions is based upon their global impact. What would have the most impact in particular regions of the world would be different. The clearest example of this for Massachusetts is to look at the rankings for wind energy. The top global solution on the current drawdown list is “onshore wind turbines” while the impact of “offshore wind turbines” is ranked 35! However, in New England clearly the ranking would be the reverse. New England has much higher potential for offshore wind than onshore wind.

    The Project Drawdown list also does not look directly at smart growth or more compact development, so the advantages fall into more than one of their solutions.

    For example, “public transit” which ranks high on the list (ranked 19) is a lot more feasible when there are more people living near a transit stop. “Bicycle infrastructure” (ranked 45) and “electric bikes” (ranked 55) would more likely be put to use and therefore have more impact when people have shorter distances to commute. “Walkable cities” (ranked 49) looks only at the literal impact of being able to walk to where they need to go.

    Given that Newton has a lot of potential for public transit, bicycle infrastructure, electric bikes and increasing walkability it makes sense that as a city, we use these smart growth solutions to impact climate change.

28. 

    Peter Bruce on September 8, 2021 at 1:39 pm

    Kathy –

    Thanks for the useful new table. Even with its revisions, however, we see that total GHG reductions from non-transit-oriented development (TOD) solutions (such as more electrified and fuel-efficient vehicles of all kinds with smarter routes and distribution patterns, along with telepresence/teleconferencing) are still roughly twice as effective as the total reductions from TOD-related ones (such as walkable cities, high-speed rail, mass/public transit, electric bikes, and ride-share shuttles/carpooling). These comparisons and contrasts are from Scenario I in that table, which, for now, is the only realistic one, since the IPPC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) has noted that even a 2-degree (Celsius) increase in global temperatures by 2100 is looking increasingly unrealistic, while the 1.5% increase envisioned in Scenario 2 is heroic beyond any collective effort waged by humanity so far, or likely in the visible future.

    And while it’s true that Drawdown has not directly focused on TOD, the categorizations above nevertheless present useful contrasts. And, if we do focus more directly on transit, we need to guard against overly abstract assumptions. For instance, while transit may be more feasible when more people live near it and can access it by muscle power on bike or foot, its success, as I noted before, depends on whether the supply and demand are adequate. If increasing numbers of people live near transit, or bike to it, but find that its service too infrequent, expensive, dangerous due to crowding in pandemic/endemic conditions, or that its fixed route is not convenient, they simply won’t use it.

    And, again, if we do focus more directly on transit’s particular settings, we are really dealing with a tale of two systems: the one around the commuter rail, which is not transit-oriented, and the one around the Green Line, which is. Although Newtonville’s large, new developments, Trio and 28 Austin Street, billed themselves as “transit-oriented,” and although that purpose was written into their Board/Council Orders, Newtonville’s transit-availability failed even at that time to meet the requirements of even the least demanding “transit-oriented neighborhood,” according to the criteria of the nation’s premier institute that certifies places as transit-oriented (i.e., Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development). And these problems have only worsened since then, especially with the MBTA’s cuts in service during the pandemic. To fight global warming effectively, transit-oriented developments should have gone into the Green Line area, i.e., Chestnut Hill, Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, and Waban instead.

    While TOD benefits from Trio and 28 Austin are questionable, these developments have also imposed social costs on the neighborhood by inflating the value of Newtonville’s rental housing stock. For instance, when “affordable” one-bedroom apartments at Trio (Washington Place) were available last December, they were renting for $2,492, or $652 more per month than the average price of such apartments in Newton, while “affordable” two-bedrooms at Trio were renting for $2,804 or $454 more than the average 2-bedroom rent in Newton.(1) As of September 4, 2021, the average prices of 1- and 2- bedroom apartments in Newton are $1,900 and $2,450. Meanwhile, market-rate 1-bedroom apartments at Trio are renting for $3630 (722 sq. ft.) and $4,200 (760 sq.ft.) In fact, the first one may have already been rented as Trio’s website says the lowest rent for any of its apartments for a 12 months+ lease is $4200. Presumably the two-bedrooms are even more pricey.(2)

    (1) Zumper.com https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/newton-ma
    From chart “Average rent in Newton, MA.” The average rent for a 1-bedroom apartment on December 19, 2020, was $1,840; for 2-bedrooms, it was $2350. The Newton Tab, December 16, 2020, had a large ad from Trio listing affordable one- and 2-bedrooms at these prices.

    (2) https://www.apartments.com/trio-newton-845-washington-st-boston-ma-unit-fl3-id353/14xdsb6/

29. 

    fignewtonville on September 8, 2021 at 4:36 pm

    Peter, you might want to check your facts and figures on Trio’s affordable units. There was a mix of 50% AMI and 80% AMI units at Trio, as well as several at 100% of AMI and 120% of AMI. You are only quoting the highest possible rent for each until, namely the ones reserved for 120% of AMI, with adjusted rents accordingly. I’ve seen this mistake consistently when affordable housing is discussed in Newton. The link below will help.

    https://sebhousing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/InfoPack_Trio_Lottery_2020.pdf

    So what we have in reality is:

    4 studios apartments renting between $923 (1 unit), $1,447 (1 unit), and $1,784 (2 units).
    15 1 bedrooms renting between $1,021 (5 units), $1,621 (5 units) $2,039 (2 units), and $2,492 (3 units)
    14 2 bedroom units renting between $1,079 (4 units), 1,753 (4 units), $2,294 (2 units) and $2,804 (4 units)
    2 3 bedroom units renting between $1,139 (1 unit) and $2,549 (1 unit)

    So Trio has 11 units at very deep rental discounts (50% ami units), with 10 units being at 80% AMI, 7 units at 100% AMI, and 7 units at 120% AMI.

    Ignoring the 28 units at 50%/80% and 100% AMI to make your point isn’t fair. The rent levels are complicated to boil down to a talking point, but those lower rent units are a huge part of the value, and those lower rent %s are locked in for the life of the building.

    As for the Smart growth argument, I’ll only note that I believe that is certainly possible to undercut (and to over emphasize) the value of smart growth. In any complicated system, you play with the inputs, the data you get will adjust accordingly. I’ve studied green building qualifications, and even in the LEED system you’ve got folks arguing the value of each aspect, the rating levels vs real value, etc. And I’m not enough of an expert to argue the benefits of smart growth more than other folks here.

    In my personal experience, targeted density, especially targeted density around transportation nodes, makes sense to me, both because of logic and my own habits. The closer I’ve moved to a transportation node, including the commuter rail, the few car trips I take. I certainly haven’t eliminated them. But my trips to the village center are often by foot. Distance matters. It isn’t just about transportation. From coffee to dry cleaning to banking to bread, living within half a mile of Newtonville allows me to do daily activities without driving. Living in the Village itself would accelerate that, even during bad weather.

    I’ll also note, that I find it a curious argument to say something like “”electric cars” or “wind turbines” will make a bigger impact. Let’s discount the rest.” Wouldn’t it make better sense to push on all of it? And this doesn’t even take into account that the environmental benefit is only a small piece of why folks like smart growth.

    I’m certainly not saying all smart growth is..well…smart. It isn’t. And like any proposal, I’m sure there are developers who are using it for their own benefit. Like the industrial plant that advertises as meeting leed gold somehow. But even so, it seems like folks are trying to back into their proposal here to meet their own worldview.

30. 

    Peter Bruce on September 9, 2021 at 1:23 am

    FigNewtonville,

    Thanks for the nuance! The information packet you linked to is very helpful. And, I think it’s great that TRIO is offering 11 units at 50% of AMI (area median income). The December 16, 2020 TAB advertisement on which I relied for my facts listed Trio’s high-priced “income restricted” apartments only. It was my mistake to assume they represented the whole range of affordable apartments at there.

    Still, the “affordable” units at 120% of AMI, are as I’ve pointed out, are much more expensive than median-priced rentals in Newton, and the ones at 100% of AMI only slightly cheaper than our median-priced rentals. The real affordability is provided by the 21 units for households making less 80% or less of AMI.

    On the other hand, Trio’s market-rate apartments, constituting three-quarters of its rentals, have rents that far exceed Newton’s median rents and thus exert an inflationary impact on our housing market.

    As for TOD, I think it makes sense where the transit is adequate, as on the Green Line which offers about 100 trips a day. Whether the denizens of TRIO will make much use of the commuter rail, with its schedule of approximately 15 trips a day, is an empirical question, and we may have to wait till the pandemic subsides more before we can know certainty.

31. 

    Mary Mary Quite Contrary on September 9, 2021 at 8:13 am

    In terms of transit oriented development, could you imagine someone signing a lease and paying that much to live in TRIO, ditching their car because it was marketed as TOD, then learning that the commuter rail and buses are inadequate? You can’t really use them to run errands and get to recreational activities. You can’t even use them to commute if you work outside of business hours or have a reverse commute or work on 128. Calling these buildings TOD is either a lie or a gross exaggeration.

    Let’s have functional public transit AND THEN let’s talk TOD and development as doing our part to combat climate change.

32. 

    Peter Bruce on September 9, 2021 at 12:25 pm

    Mary,
    Excellent points! Especially “Let’s have functional public transit AND THEN let’s talk TOD and development as doing our part to combat climate change.”

    As for Fignewtonville’s assertion that “from coffee to dry cleaning to banking to bread, living within half a mile of Newtonville allows me to do daily activities without driving,” it seems this kind of “walkable-city” synergy would vary by people’s social class and individual tastes.

    I don’t know who Mr/Ms Fig… is, or what her/his job is, but as a former cab driver with an intellectual bent, who lives a block away from Newtonville Center, I find that most of my frequent outside-the-home activities take me away from Newtonville. I don’t drink coffee or wear suits that need dry cleaning, and though I’m a regular customer at the Village Bank and Lobster Wok, I buy pizza at D&A’s in the Lake, not at Mida’s. And for similar budgetary reasons, and because they stock more items I like, I shop at the Stop and Shop on Watertown St. and at Trader Joe’s in West Newton, rather than Star Market or Whole Foods. And, where can you get a good bagel in Newtonville? Bruegger’s or Rosenfeld’s, here I come!

    Other Newtonvillers who live on fixed or moderate incomes shop at Market Basket in Waltham, Costco, and BJ’s.

    I also buy or check out library books elsewhere, and recreate at the Y (outside of the pandemic), though Newton North’s track is a wonderful alternative.

33. 

    Mary Mary Quite Contrary on September 9, 2021 at 1:55 pm

    Exactly! I even periodically head to Natick to go to Aldi because I find I save a lot of money if I do a shopping trip there for staples.

    Another thing that brings me out of Newton is when I need to buy miscellany – i.e. going to Target. Washington Street would be great for one of those mini Targets like in Porter Square. When we need things like socks, school supplies, or a lamp I’d love to just walk down Washington Street to get it. I’m sure the folks in Trio or Austin St or the new upcoming developments would love it too. If we can’t have decent public transit (yet) some more practical shopping would at least reduce the need for these short haul trips to Watertown or Framingham.

34. 

    Bugek on September 9, 2021 at 2:23 pm

    Over 50% of cars in metro Boston will be EV looooong before MBTA ever provide decent public transportation…

    We should stop wasting our time lobbying them and lobbying for EV transition.

    There are many painful tools Newton could apply to nudge buyers.. but requires courage

35. 

    Alex Blumenstiel on September 9, 2021 at 8:57 pm

    Carbon tax?

36. 

    Garry Miller on September 10, 2021 at 10:48 am

    Andrea Campbell in her race for Boston mayor has pledged to ensure that there is nearby access to basic staples like food in every neighborhood.

    I would love to hear a candidate for Mayor of Newton pledge to find a way to get a grocery store, drugstore, etc in every village center so that people can easily access these staples without having to drive long distances. A like the idea of a mini-Target in the Washington St area.

37. 

    Lucia on September 10, 2021 at 11:20 am

    Mass transit benefits more than just the environment, it promotes social mobility and allows people who can’t afford an individual car a way to get to work, medical appts., college, etc.

    https://www.instituteforchildsuccess.org/insufficient-public-transportation-decelerates-economic-mobility/

    Individual car ownership is not cheap est. $13,843 per year for a new car in MA https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/most-expensive-states-to-own-a-car

38. 

    Bugek on September 10, 2021 at 11:49 am

    Lucia,

    Public transportation does benefit the public greatly. The fact that its still broken after 30 years tells you all you need to know.

    Its not going to get fixed and its time for private solution (uber, uber shuttled, self driving cars)

    To expect it to be fixed is the definition of insanity (hoping and praying and getting nothing for 30 years)

39. 

    Mike Halle on September 10, 2021 at 12:29 pm

    MMQC is talking all the right pieces here. As I’ve said before, we need an “all of the above” and more. Make short local trips the most convenient ones, and bolster local businesses that hire local employees at the same time. Those same short local trips can be car-free trips for at least some people, and we should relentlessly maximize that number of people, or more specifically, as many trips as possible. That’s how we get “vehicle miles traveled” and emissions down.

    With luck, MMQC and I will someday cross paths at the West Newton, Newtonville, or Newton Corner City Target, oblivious to each other, basking in the blissful convenience of it all, marveling at our mutual prescience. Maybe we walked, maybe we biked, maybe we drove. Maybe Target (or something like it) will ofter same day delivery for our big bundle of goods purchased from a cheery local checker. Or maybe we’re just happy we could zip in and zip out and get back to our regularly scheduled lives.

    I feel we keep trying to fit transit into a box, a preconceived notion of what it should be. As Lucia said, transit DOES offer access to those who otherwise have limited geographic mobility due to a variety of constraints (socioeconomic) or choices. If we believe we live in a fair society that functions better with more opportunities for all, then we need to support them with reliable mobility. That same mobility offers other people even more options and choices. It makes our society more robust to disruptions such as snow storms or traffic jams or worsening climate. It gives us as a society more options to address the needs of development.

    At the same time though, most people in Newton have cars and will choose convenient or time-saving paths that use them as needed. We can’t ignore them in our calculus of reducing congestion, making neighborhoods stronger through safer walking and biking, reducing emissions, and saving people time. We bring them along, creatively. Bulk grocery shopping for a family is hard without a car, and also hard by transit or local walking or biking (Even though people do it. I did it for years.). So let’s preserve local markets that provide the loaf of bread or gallon of milk convenience trips and make think creatively about the big grocery runs. Maybe we can do something to encourage local delivery. Or accept that ride share like Uber or Lyft serves important unmet needs. But we still win when replace every regional trip with a local trip, every regional mile by a local mile, and every need to drive and own a car or second car by a set of other options.

    Do it right, do it well, and this isn’t “eat your canned peas and carrots” punishment or dictate. Give people choices, but make the easiest and most awesome choices also be the most efficient and least impactful ones.

    That’s what we should be doing.

    And to counter Bugek’s point, EVs and decentralization and privatization don’t solve the problem by themselves. Everyone dislikes congestion, whether it pollutes or not. Some solutions to these problems simply aren’t in the private, profit driven interest. Or they don’t have the right time horizon. Or they don’t align with larger public planning.

    We start with visions of where we want to go, and bring in the ideas and tools and people that help us get there. Sometimes it’s private, sometimes public. Sometimes it’s circuitous. For example, upstarts like Bridj, which offered on-demand transit, helped show us new options for public and public-private transit even though it failed as a company. But the vision, our North Star, is the thing only we can come up with.

40. 

    Mary Mary Quite Contrary on September 10, 2021 at 12:34 pm

    Uber is broken, too. It’s getting increasingly difficult to get one and the fares are no cheaper than taxis – and the two draws of an Uber versus a taxi were ease of getting one and lower fares. The drivers are paid poorly and it’s prohibitively expensive – I just checked to see how much it would cost to go from my home in West Newton to the YMCA, where I worked out a few times a week pre COVID. $11-$15. 2.5 miles.

    Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if Uber goes the way of the dodo.

41. 

    Mary Mary Quite Contrary on September 10, 2021 at 12:36 pm

    “With luck, MMQC and I will someday cross paths at the West Newton, Newtonville, or Newton Corner City Target, oblivious to each other, basking in the blissful convenience of it all, marveling at our mutual prescience.”

    Yesss, Mike Halle! I would love this!

42. 

    Nathan Phillips on September 10, 2021 at 1:30 pm

    Well put, Mike & MMQC.

    I see a parent often at the Farmers Market who rides their Urban Arrow e-cargo bike, hauling kid plus groceries with ease.
    It doesn’t feel safe enough to many for them to try this, and the price point is still high, but I’d love it if the City funded two or three of these which could be loaned out from the library for people to try out.

43. 

    Kathy Pillsbury on September 10, 2021 at 5:02 pm

    MMQC — Since the topic of car ownership and parking in the new development comes up regularly, I was curious how much of the parking at Austin St. is used. So, I asked the developer about it. Of the 90 underground spots for tenants that were required, no more than 68 have been leased by the people living there. That’s an average of one car per unit. In contrast, across Newton the approximate number of cars is two per household.

    In that location there are other transportation options – the train or the bus. There are many stores and restaurants right nearby. All three levels of school – elementary, middle and high schools are within walking distance.

    While the frequency of the train may not technically qualify for transit-oriented development people choose where they live based on other factors as well. The combination of transportation options, other amenities and schools nearby, seems to have attracted tenants who only have one car. The more these kinds of options for places to live are available, the better it will be for our climate.

    Peter — I totally agree with you that there should be more options for people to live near the Green Line as well. (I live near the Green Line.)

44. 

    Bugek on September 11, 2021 at 3:38 pm

    Fyi. Watertown now has a $1 shuttle bus to cambridge. First stop is opposite Russos.

    Stop relying/praying on MBTA is the way to go to get things done.

    https://www.watertownmanews.com/2021/09/10/watertown-shuttle-starts-running-from-pleasant-street-to-harvard-square/

45. 

    BOB BURKE on September 12, 2021 at 4:11 pm

    This has been a fantastic thread and I’ll have more to say about my thoughts in a later comment, Here I just want to type in one comment that was sent by Garry Miller of Newton Upper Falls. Gary is a first time responder so his note was sent to me as the the original poster to make certain that people aren’t posting under more than one name, leveling false and malicious charges against another person etc. Gary checked out and with Jerry’s help, I cleared his comment. Unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared into some black hole so I’m retyping it verbatim here.

    “Andrea Campbell, in her race for Boston mayor, has pledged to ensure that there is nearby access to basic staples like food in every neighborhood. I would love to hear a candidate for Mayor of Newton find a way to get a grocery store, drugstore, etc. in every village center so that people can easily access these staples without having to drive long distances. I like the idea of a mini-Target in the Washington Street area.”

    Thank you Gary and I hope you will continue to comment. I should add that Newton Highlands has a miraculously surviving hidden Gem in the Walnut Foods Market on Lincoln Street that has been there since the 1940s when I would go there to buy penny candy.

46. 

    Ted Hess-Mahan on September 12, 2021 at 7:46 pm

    @Bob Burke/Garry Miller: What is creating food deserts and preventing every village from having the requisite amenities to make them more environmentally sustainable, walkable, and livable (e.g., grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. and provide enough housing for residents within easy, accessible walking distance to make them both financially and practically feasible is Newton’s restrictive, pro-single-family, anti-density zoning scheme. But those who so often say they want these amenities most are opposed to enacting the zoning that would make them possible. Which reminds me of my favorite Barney Frank quote: “Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die.”

47. 

    MaryLee on September 12, 2021 at 8:13 pm

    When I moved to Newton Centre 14 years ago I could go to a butcher, who also had other staples, a wine shop, a beer shop and a liquor store. They were here, but now they aren’t.

48. 

    Matt Lai on September 12, 2021 at 9:12 pm

    Funny…we lament the loss of walkable markets and stores. Yet, how many of us use Amazon and drive to Target because local retail is unable to compete with pricing. How many walk or bike to Whole Foods or Wegman’s vs arriving by car? 10%? 5%? 1%? Without a formal study on-hand, the eye test favors the latter much more than the prior.

    It’s got nothing to do with Newton’s accused “restrictive, anti-housing, etc. policies” (surprised @Ted didn’t throw in “racist” as well). It’s the free market. The same free-market that claims more apartments will bring housing costs back to Earth, when at no point in history, has housing costs dipped without being accompanied by an economic downturn.

    Won’t pretend that I have the answer, but it certainly is not zoning.

49. 

    Nathan Phillips on September 13, 2021 at 8:16 am

    Matt, the Target in Arsenal Mall is almost fully a safe and really enjoyable bike ride from those parts of Newton close to the Charles River Greenway. It won’t work for every trip of course (at least if you can’t afford one of the amazing e-cargo bikes which are exploding in popularity), but for things like small electronics and other not-huge items it’s an option, which I truly think some people would prefer over driving if they gave it a chance. If you ride, why don’t you join me for a ride there sometime to find out for yourself? We can blog about it! I can even loan you a bike or an e-bike if need be.

50. 

    Mike Halle on September 13, 2021 at 9:03 am

    Matt, if there was a City Target or other small general store anywhere on Washington Street, it would be a popular destination for people traveling many different ways. If there was enough housing around it, those people would walk for small stuff and drive or have delivery for big stuff. People further away might drop by on another trip or, at worst, make a local rather than regional trip. I work in the Fenway, and the Target there is a great place to pick up something small and take it home by train. When I lived in Jamaica Plain, I did the same at the small local Whole Foods or the local bodega. When stopping at the store has essentially no cost, you have the ability to do it much more often, getting fresher bread and a lighter load to carry as well.

    Every trip done without a car is a better trip for congestion and the environment, but those trips can in fact be the most convenient trips for people as well.

    This kind of shopping pattern has been popular for more than a century. The fact that you cited Target as a brick and mortar destination means that the ideas viable even for skeptics. Target’s smaller stores generated $1B in sales in 2019, and they are adding forty a year in the US. They also use their stores for shipping and fulfillment, which means less truck vehicle miles traveled from more distant warehouses. In this way, local stores help from a speed, sustainability and congestion point of view even for people who get home delivery.

    This kind of retail, along with local restaurants and other businesses, benefit from local density. That’s what many (but not all) of our village centers have provided Newton. It’s why this idea can work, because it has worked. And people love vibrant squares and villages. It’s a core part of what makes Newton Newton.

    That’s why we need to integrate the goal of a realistic car-free or car-light lifestyle into every aspect of our development, planning, and economic development efforts. It’s not enough to just build near transit. It build residential density. We need to anticipate, attract, and retain the businesses that eliminate as many “vehicle miles traveled” as possible, and do it in a way that’s the best option for the most people. This isn’t forcing peas and carrots on anyone. This giving them more convenient access to farm-fresh peas and carrots and other yummy foods that they already love.

    Who doesn’t love many great choices?

51. 

    Mike Halle on September 13, 2021 at 9:14 am

    And Matt,

    The free market isn’t the only, and maybe not even the main, force here. Zoning is a huge factor. Personal example: our local bodega in JP that one one block away met our needs for so many staples: milk for breakfast, paper towels or TP when we ran out, rice or beans of many kinds, Maria Cookies for the kids. The local Dominican community used it for many more cultural staples. City Feed and Supply, a very crunchy and quite expensive produce and convenience store a few blocks further away was the source of many yummy, healthier, and fresher items when we needed them in a pinch.

    They and other stores like them are embedded in the residential community. They provide extremely convenient food and supplies as well as serving as a community hub.

    And by zoning, they couldn’t exist in much of Newton (I believe, I’m no zoning expert). We can argue whether that’s what people want or not or whether it’s good or not, but it isn’t the free market speaking. Decisions made long ago shaped how people live all the time.

52. 

    Sumukh Tendulkar on September 13, 2021 at 10:22 am

    Really good (mostly) data-driven conversation!

    Adding a new thread to the conversation – Carbon footprints of teardowns.
    I hope this is an easy one for everyone to agree. A single-family new construction takes 40-50 years to recoup the environmental impact when compared to the existing non-efficient structure of similar sq ft. The “payback period” goes up significantly when you compare teardown to the renovation option. Besides teardown involves cement/concrete that have just too large a carbon footprint.

    So instead of talking of reducing GHG, maybe we can agree on STOPPING new GHG from teardowns. WDYT?
    Source: Page 9 https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The_Greenest_Building.pdf

53. 

    Mike Halle on September 13, 2021 at 11:06 am

    Sumukh Tendulkar, interesting point about teardowns, with the following caveats to think about.

    First, the residence being torn down has to be desirable. Needs and expectations for housing, particularly for families, has changed over time. Even when people are happy with older or more modest properties, they may want to take steps to update them. What’s the impact of those modifications to either efficiency or resale? (And this point even neglects other non-GHG advantages such as compliance to modern building codes.)

    Related to these points, environmental impact of teardowns is borne by society at large, but the costs of inefficiency (or correcting the inefficiency) of an existing structure are carried by individual owners. In some cases government-mandated programs like MassSave cover some of the costs. However, it’s a challenge to trade off these costs between individuals and society.

    Finally, we grant a lot of freedom to property owners. How does government dictate/control/guide what people do with their property with regarding teardowns? Especially because of the financial risks and legal challenges of making changes that impact property values mid-stream. Whether you support it or not, that’s an advantage of relaxing zoning codes: you’re giving property owners more freedom rather than less.

54. 

    Sumukh Tendulkar on September 13, 2021 at 2:18 pm

    @Mike Halle – It seems you are in agreement w the core premise – teardown moratorium can STOP significant GHG in v short term (pl. correct). I am sure you can be convinced to drop your caveats as well:

    Need to make house desirable – Remember – this is about teardowns and preserving the embodied carbon in existing structure. You can still renovate, add sq ft or bathrooms. The teardown moratorium is against wiping a nice, yet old drawing and starting from clean slate at huge cost to the planet.

    Society v individual – I would say the biggest cost borne for a teardown is borne by the abutters who have to deal w the debris, noise, traffic (and yes rats) etc. They are the innocent by standing victims here what about their rights? Also the argument smells like another flawed and short-sighted argument saying we all pay for public transport infrastructure that only a small % ever derive benefits.

    Re: freedom for property owners – Teardowns are almost exclusively orchestrated by commercial enterprises, not residents. I don’t think we are bound to honor economic profits of some commercial enterprises such as developers or gun stores.

    Speaking bluntly – not eliminating / significantly reducing teardown is a dereliction of our collective responsibility to slow climate change. They add to the carbon footprint and create trash out of good embodied carbon. (glad to be convinced otherwise)

    This is a solution that is obvious and staring in our face and looking for a leader to champion.

55. 

    Lucia on September 13, 2021 at 5:25 pm

    Could you support this statement? “Re: freedom for property owners – Teardowns are almost exclusively orchestrated by commercial enterprises, not residents. I don’t think we are bound to honor economic profits of some commercial enterprises such as developers or gun stores.”

    Are you implying commercial enterprises trick people into selling their houses to developers? How do you know home owners aren’t just happy to sell to the highest bidder?

    And where do the rats in the teardown come from? Were they original residents of the house or do teardowns somehow attract them?

56. 

    Mike Halle on September 13, 2021 at 7:00 pm

    Sumukh, the points I raised aren’t my caveats to drop. They are facts that have to be dealt with that complicate the idea of “let’s prevent teardowns” from becoming a policy or practical reality, for GHG reduction or any other reason. That doesn’t mean I don’t like the concept, it’s just that there are good reasons it might not work.

    “You can still renovate, add sq ft or bathrooms.” You can, but it puts a huge convenience cost onto the homeowner. I’ve known several families in Newton who have done it. It’s highly disruptive, requires onerous special permits, often requires relocation and the costs thereof, and transforms the house into a higher value property. From a GHG point of view, that might not matter, but from an affordable housing point of view, it may be another route to larger, less affordable, less accessible houses. Also, there’s a question of how much of the original structure is saved when a renovation occurs. How do you build policy around that? I’m with you on the intentions, but turning them into effective and understandable policy is much harder.

    “I would say the biggest cost borne for a teardown is borne by the abutters who have to deal w the debris, noise, traffic (and yes rats) etc.” That may be true in some cases, but we don’t currently acknowledge or compensate for those costs. We limit abutters’ rights to significant quantifiable hardship. I don’t see how a new expansion of those rights gets worked into the social equation at this point. Many people are aware that any such limitations will apply to them when they sell their properties. That may apply to homeowner’s associations in private developments, but it doesn’t traditionally hold in municipalities, and is very difficult to impose after-the-fact.

    A house across from my was recently torn down and replaced by one at least twice its size, a multi-million dollar house. The old house was in disrepair and had been condemned at least once. Is the new house to my 100% preference? No. but the old one was a some mix of heartbreak, eyesore, and public menace. It wasn’t anything to romanticize, and I don’t think you’ll find any neighbors who did. This isn’t an isolated case.

    “Teardowns are almost exclusively orchestrated by commercial enterprises, not residents.” After residents sell their houses to developers, often no-strings attached and for top dollar. Should that be prohibited? How? I support the idea of co-op housing, which limits the profit on housing, but it has to be done before the fact not after.

    “I don’t think we are bound to honor economic profits of some commercial enterprises such as developers” I would be interested to hear how you would limit the profits of J. Random Developer in a way that would pass legal muster, which it has to.

    “or gun stores” Wasn’t expecting that one, moving on.

    “[tearodowns] add to the carbon footprint and create trash out of good embodied carbon.” I agree that the evidence seems to support this statement. That doesn’t mean there’s an obvious path to effective practical change or public policy based on it. Maybe there is.

    There is one more big caveat, and that involve the distinction between houses and land. If existing structures are on land developed under ineffective land-use policies, preserving them may cement those policies. IF (and I’m being clear that I don’t think it’s always the case) higher density residential and carefully planned commercial spaces can be developed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and congestion while at the same time promote socially tight neighborhoods and villages, such development would have important long-term benefits that may far offset construction emissions.

    In this case, a policy of preserving existing structures would preclude these long-term land use reforms (which would still have to be vetted by the community for a variety of other reasons). It’s important to look objectively and dispassionately at the whole picture. We’re planning the future, after all.

57. 

    Sumukh Tendulkar on September 13, 2021 at 8:40 pm

    @Lucia – Let me make the point differently – Almost all teardowns are initiated by developers, and we are not obligated to protect their profits. (This was in response to the topic of private rights, which I interpret as rights of the property owner ie resident).

    As re: data – This is my observation. I have not found this data published by the city. Feel free to point if Newton publishes this data and I will be glad to crunch.

    @Mike Halle – Lets take a gaint step back –
    Like many others, I believe climate change is an existential threat. One of the most significant sources of new GHG is teardowns. Besides GHG, teardowns also divert embodied carbon to landfills.

    If you believe it is imperative we reduce GHG, it is incumbent on us to limit/eliminate these teardowns.

    Will there be issues? Will there be opposition? You bet! Any solution to reducing GHG will be tough and have issues. I believe teardowm moratorium is probably the least painful and one with immediate impact (again IMHO).

    As I pointed earlier, teardown moratoriums will take leadership at the city level. I am not looking to create a policy on this blog, just looking to share one of the most obvious solutions thats relevant to the original topic.

58. 

    Robert Welbourn on September 13, 2021 at 10:31 pm

    @Samukh — Perhaps most teardowns are developer-driven, but I can provide counter-examples. We ourselves elected to have our own home demolished and start over. We like the neighborhood we had lived in for the previous 17 years and wanted to stay. We had to go through the Historic Commission and Special Permit processes, apply for the construction loan, hire a GC, find a one-year rental and manage two house moves in the space of one year.

    Needless to say, I’m not in a hurry to do that again, but we did end up with a house that met the needs of our growing family, and is considerably more energy efficient and has better amenities than the one it replaced. The City agrees: they tripled our real estate taxes, so I guess we ended up also giving back to the community, or if you prefer, paying our fair share. (We still only get one trash bin, for all our profligate consumption.)

    Nor are we alone: two of our neighbors less than 100 meters distant went through exactly the same process.

    Now, in your calculus, how are developers materially different from homeowners going through this process? You talk about the “rights of the property owner”. Isn’t a developer a property owner? Typically the developer is the owner and also the general contractor; we were the owner, but had to hire a GC. In either case, the GC has to make profit. What’s the difference?

    So let’s stipulate that an owner-occupier directed teardown–or shall we say upgrade?–is no different from one where a homeowner sells to a developer. Let’s admit that many old structures are actually clapped out and need replacing, and that the cost of replacing a structure is often less than stripping it down to the bones and maybe adding on to it.

    When I hear the folks from the Newton Villages Alliance and their ilk talk about redevelopment eliminating “naturally affordable properties”, what they really mean is that we should keep places that are run-down. I’m not so sure that’s a very splendid policy goal.

59. 

    Alex Blumenstiel on September 14, 2021 at 5:30 pm

    Susan Shaheen, PhD, co-director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, will present her talk “Strategies to Overcome Transportation Barriers for Rent Burdened Residents” as part of the U.S. DOT Volpe Center’s 2021 thought leadership series, Innovation for a Sustainable, Equitable Transportation System, on Thursday, September 23, 2021, at 12 p.m. (ET).

    Attend the Event
    The public is invited to join us by livestream. Each speaker’s presentation will be followed by a Q&A period where event participants are invited to share ideas, ask questions, and engage with our speakers. (https://www.volpe.dot.gov/events/susan-shaheen)

60. 

    BOB BURKE on September 14, 2021 at 6:25 pm

    @Alex Blumenstein. Thanks for posting this conference. I just registered and it looks relevant to a core of this discussion.

61. 

    Alex Blumenstiel on September 14, 2021 at 6:47 pm

    @Bob Burke Sir, You are most welcome. Thank you. V/R alex b.

62. 

    Jerry Reilly on September 14, 2021 at 7:24 pm

    Two comments were removed from this thread for violating V14 rules

63. 

    Ted Hess-Mahan on September 14, 2021 at 7:29 pm

    @Sumukh Tendulkar: The tradeoff between a new multi-family that does not rely on fossil rules versus tearing down a fossil fueled single family is well worth it, in the long run.

    In law school I learned that every property buyer will someday be a seller. Homebuyers in Newton are not just buying houses to tear them down. They are buying houses and the land underneath them, which is usually (i.e., always) worth far more than the house itself. In our capitalist system, property owners get to do what they want with their property, within the law. If they can sell a house for the best price to someone who will tear it down, legally, that is their right.

    Neighbors do not get to decide what a property owner can legally do. Unfortunately, most neighbors do not understand that until they want to sell their house.