In a multi-pronged proposal to the City Council’s joint Zoning & Planning and Land Use committee meeting Tuesday, the Right Size Riverside committee (also known as Lower Falls Improvement Association) started its presentation for the Riverside MBTA station site (city documents here) with an usual request..
Don’t call the Riverside MBTA site a “Transit Oriented Development.”
Here’s how Right Sized explained its request in a memo…
“…Riverside is not robust. Located at the terminus of the Green Line D Branch, with long travel times to most major centers of employment, and with only one MBTA bus line stopping at Riverside only a handful of times per day, transit at Riverside is weak. Indeed, what distinguishes Riverside from other Green Line stations in Newton (none of which are in districts named “TOD”) is its proximity to highways and its parking lot, making it a highly car-centric location. The current labeling of the District as “TOD” is both misleading and encourages reliance on labels. The label should be removed and the facts should be allowed to speak for
themselves.”
Do the folks at Right Sized Riverside know something the MBTA and hundreds of thousands of Green Line and bus riders (or even Wikipedia) don’t?
Is Riverside Station a transit oriented site? Yes or no?
A development situated right on top of a T Station is absolutely transit oriented. Long travel time? Give me a break. 45 minutes to Government center, 35 to Hynes. You can’t beat that with a car. This development will be a dream for doctors, nurses and scientists working in the Longwood area, approximately 25 minutes from Riverside. Contrary to the endless griping here and elsewhere about the T, the D line is actually working very well. This kind of project is *exactly* what’s missing from Newton’s housing stock.
Clearly you haven’t ridden on the T from Riverside. It takes an hour and a half to get to South Station during commuting hours. If I drive in to the city (as I do everyday for work) it takes me 20-30 minutes. With a family and kids every minute counts. I won’t waste my time on the T. The commuter rail unfortunately runs very infrequently and is unreliable.
The reason why this site is attractive is because it is located on the crossroads of 128 and the MassPike. The public transport options are fairly useless from Riverside. It is easy to get to Metrowest, or the North or south shore as well as into the city from this area by car. I wholeheartedly agree with LFIA that this will be a highway oriented development, not a transit oriented development.
Perhaps you should have stayed for the rest of the public hearing. You might have learned something.
And just try to get to Cambridge from
Riverside. Ha!
If it’s location adjacent to a Green Line stop makes Riverside a de facto TOD, then shouldn’t there be a desire to create TODs at other Green Line stops as well, like Newton Centre and Waban? Lots of “tired” single and two-story retail buildings that could be torn down and replaced with 4-5 stories of mixed-use.
No. For two reasons…
1. Doesn’t matter if the D line starts at Riverside if the rest of it is wrought with bad tracks, consistent “signal failures”, 3 inbound train lines converging at Kenmore and a 4th at Copley, resulting in constant delays and over crowding. (Add a Sox game in the summer and fuggetaboutit)
2. The three worst parts of 95/128 as it relates to traffic….where 95 intersects with 95, and the 3 exists between Needham and Brookline (RT 9).
These problems will not mysteriously go away just because Northland and MarkDev put a few private shuttle busses in their proposal.
In addition, as was mentioned at the public hearing tonight at City Hall, the MBTA needs to be a part of this development project. They stand to profit considerably with potential new commuters (assuming the new trains will be deployed and are 1/3 faster as promised) and ought to be investing in it. If there was a public/ private partnership then the development wouldn’t need to be so dense and massive (In order for it to be marginally profitable for the private developer) it could be scaled down considerably and may even have a chance of being somewhat acceptable to the neighboring villages of Auburndale and Lower Falls. Oh and the projected traffic (3x what it is today – already intolerable) would be lessened.
@Tricia: I agree 100%. There should be development around the other stations too.
@Lisa: I ride the T regularly, I know exactly how long it takes.
The MBTA does not make money from riders — indeed just the opposite. Your fare or pass does not cover the entire cost of providing the service — just like your toll does not cover the entire cost of a ride on the Mass Pike. Both are subsidized by the state (with money that comes from taxes, not a Magic Money Tree) because transportation is a necessity and a public good. Any profit the T makes from development at Riverside will come from the developer, or from associated real estate income (rents) if that’s how the contract is structured.
Supporters of Right Sized Newton have many valid concerns but the group lost all possible credibility by starting its presentation with such an Orwellian request (“reject the evidence of your eyes and ears”).
25 minutes to Boston from Riverside? During the rush hour, there are more trains, but on great days when there is a Red Sox game, I can get from Newton Highlands to Fenway in 20 minutes. Those days are my favorite. But in reality, it takes longer to get into Boston than 25 minutes
Let’s stop the hand wringing over how well the train works. If this isn’t transit oriented, I’m not sure what is.
Are you expecting people to live in the train cars?
“45 minutes to Government center, 35 to Hynes. You can’t beat that with a car. ”
You can, though. Even with some rush hour traffic right now at 7:42 AM, Google Maps says 26 minutes from Riverside to Government Center by car.
Of course Riverside is a transit-oriented site. Tens of thousands of us are on the D line daily, many starting from there. It is extremely convenient to Longwood, BU, and a host of other large employers. Connecting Riverside to Auburndale would be very helpful for those going to South Station. And replacing the sad, underused buildings in Netwon Highlands, etc., with high-quality, mixed-use housing would be wonderful.
We definitely need to find a way to develop and improve our transit options. But Right Size Newton and their allies couldn’t make it more clear that NIMBYism drives them to make any argument that might stick. In this case, they’ve slipped into an absurd alternative universe. The fact that the D line is not convenient to Cambridge does not imply that it is not an important public resource.
I think it is very important how well mass transit works in Newton or anywhere for Transit Oriented Development. When I first saw Right Size Riverside’s proposal to not call the Riverside Development TOD, I thought crazy. Now I agree with them. There is no action I can see anywhere in Newton to significantly improve our mass transit – bus or train.
Just yesterday, there were delays on the Green line due to signal failure. My kids have been on the Green Line when the train derailed and started on fire (separate incidences). The thing that shocked them most, was the lack of surprise/alarm. Just another day on Mass Transit in MA.
Yesterday I was also at a Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting on regional transit. The MPO disburses Federal Highway Funds. The only groups that showed up from Newton were the privately run business Shuttles – MASCO & 128 Business Council. The proposed mission of the MPO Transit committee “represent public transportation providers serving the Boston region.” Without reliable and frequent public mass transit in Newton, I don’t believe we can call any development here TOD.
Yes Riverside qualifies.
Anticipating the next questions, Northland doesn’t qualify, and the Washington St. properties don’t really qualify unless the commuter line vastly increases it service with a lower ticket price (like the T).
Should we provide an opportunity for a significant number of people to live at a site where there’s already decent transit, and most of the infrastructure in place to have really good transit? Or say no to the possibility of an excellent TOD opportunity because what’s there today is sub-par, and effectively send those people off to live somewhere nearby* with little hope of being transit-oriented? Seems pretty clear to me.
*I think one thing that’s often missed in these conversations is this: The potential residents of this or any other development in Newton are already here in the region. Their jobs are in the region. Some are driving to Riverside today to park and take the T. Others are coming from 128 and taking route 16 through Newton to get to the Pike. Others are coming in through Auburndale Square every morning on Comm Ave, either to head into jobs in Newton or take a left in the square to get to Waltham (trust me on this one… I live off Comm Ave near the Marriott and see the thousands or cars streaming in every morning). Etc.
These aren’t *new* people who will magically appear in the area when new housing goes in. They are here, and on our roads, already.
Sure, it’s at a green line station. It is also at the JUNCTION of 128 and Pike. So, to call it transit-oriented is marketing. I’m sure many residents of the housing there, like the residents of the neighborhood, will use the D line. However, more will likely use 128 and the Pike. I currently live in the neighborhood and more residents drive than take the train.
In the rush to say “transit-oriented, transit-oriented, transit-oriented,” people are missing the fact that residents who use the D line to commute will virtually never use it to grocery shop, take their kids to school, go to doctor’s appointments, visit friends, have a haircut, and run errands. So, while traffic in and around the site will be *slightly* less than a gigantic development without a train station, the impact on the neighborhood will be HUGE.
To call those of us not wanting the development in our neighborhood NIMBY is highly insulting. NIMBY suggests we don’t want anything. Why can’t you question and try to have some impact on something in your back yard?
Do YOU something so huge in your back yard? Let’s put some nice apartment building up at the Waban T. Slap up 500 apartments in a 20-story building, call it TOD and toss around the term “affordable housing” and everyone who doesn’t live there will support it. Anyone who opposes it from Waban is NIMBY?
By urban planning definition, is this site transit oriented? Yes. But so is Waban and none would dare propose an off-scale development there.
If someone loves and only eats fast food, are they “Foodies”? The MBTA (D line in particular) is the Burger King of public transit. Better in recent years, but far from fine dining.
IF public transit was better, IF the Developer was willing to double down to ENSURE their proposed transit mediation strategies are PERMANENT, then many more folks would support more density.
Generally speaking, no one is against affordable housing, smaller carbon footprint, etc.
The opposition you’re all hearing in living rooms, coffee shops, online and public hearing is the uneasiness of current residents that traffic, density, school enrollments are NOT being satisfactorily addressed BEFORE zoning and permitting are approved.
Nothing good happens when the cart is out before the horse.
@Allison – You are making Rightside Riverside and LFIA’s point so well.
If this project was approved under the developer’s zoning amendment, it would triple the traffic volume generated by the site from roughly 4,700 car trips to 14,500 car trips per day, according to the developer’s traffic studies. Traffic as you stated is already a nightmare and the increased traffic from this development will be crushing to Grove Street, Auburndale and Newton Lower Falls.
Yes, Riverside qualifies. I’ve taken the line into Boston on an occasional basis for years. The trip takes between 40 to 50 minutes most days, depending on when I get the train. Whoever said it takes 1.5 hours must have hit the worst commuting day ever…
Northland doesn’t qualify.
Washington Street qualifies. Commuter Rail and Bus route right outside your door. Perfect, no. But compared to most communities outside of Boston, it is a real option for a Boston based commute. I take green line when I have business in Newton Centre, I take the Commuter Rail on a regular basis, I take express bus during non-rush hour to save money, and I occasionally take an Uber for $18 or so to Downtown.
The current options are just ok. But we have those options, and with the current phone applications, each morning I can pick the best one for me.
Needham street just feels like a nightmare, and since it isn’t my nightmare, I don’t feel qualified to speak on it.
I want whatever “Right Size Riverside” is smoking.
Of course Riverside is transit oriented. In fact, when my wife and I decide to downsize, I would love to live there so I can take the T to Red Sox games and downtown without having to pay to park my car in a garage or parking lot.
MMQC, it is true that you can drive to Boston more quickly than a ride on the T from Riverside. But the question is, what do you do with your car/SUV once you get there? You either pay an arm and a leg for parking, or you orbit the neighborhood looking for free parking or a metered space (if you can even find a space). And if you work downtown, you could easily spend a couple hundred dollars a week for the privilege of parking in a garage. A ride on the T from Riverside is the price of a Charlie Card Monthly LinkPass ($84.50/month). You can’t beat that with a stick. The Masspike tolls alone will run you at least $68.00 a month if you commute daily, which does not include parking.
I do agree with you about the parking – I do take the T more often than not, but it’s definitely not to save time! I do it to avoid the hassle and cost of parking, but it does come with a different price for me: the green line makes me motion sick. I once narrowly escaped vomiting on a green line car by making a swift exit and making it to a garbage can quickly enough. But that’s a tangent. 🙂
Yes, of course Riverside is transit oriented. What else would it be? Anything along Washington will also be transit oriented but with that could we please get increased commuter rail service? Pleeeease? The commuter rail doesn’t make me barf!
The Riverside site has such tremendous potential of being a real transit hub for the region. When I think of the amount of money possibly being spent on a ramp that will what? Make it easier to bring cars to the site – and not being spent on improving public transit? It’s outrageous.
@Amy: I’m a little surprised by this. I would have thought that reducing car traffic on Grove Street would have been a top concern for neighbors and that this was one way to accomplish this. Is it not?
The uptick in these “yes/no” posts is just a bad look for both sides at this point, let’s not let our frustration result in a continuation of these types of posts.
Regardless, I think Rightside comes out of this presentation looking pretty NIMBY, and this is coming from someone who vehemently opposes Northland’s Needham Street proposal. The Riverside proposal is linked to an MBTA hub, is on the MBTA’s longest train-line, and is right next to the highway. Not sure how you get more transit-oriented than that. A Riverside development will bring much needed housing to Newton, and do so in a very practical manner.
It is a top concern Greg. We can’t handle a massive development without solving access issues. But if that “access” is driving the need for such high density – then IMHO – get rid of the access AND significantly reduce the size of the project.
Walkscore rates it excellent on transit, but for walkability says: “Car-Dependent: Most errands require a car.” A good portion of those errand trips will head up Grove St into Newton rather than 95.
https://www.walkscore.com/score/grove-st-newton-ma-us
Playing Devil’s advocate, I would argue Riverside with it’s current transit is complimentary to a car for residents rather than supplanting cars completely. The Commuter Rail is useful for a 9-5 commuter but outside of that is too limited, I’m not going to take the CR to get from Auburndale to Newtonville. The Green Line from Riverside is certainly more convenient for getting into Brookline and Boston but also adds more time compared to a car. Another case where if I’m going into Boston for leisure I’d take the GL but to get to Newton Center I’m probably going to drive. I would guess many people who move into Riverside will use transit to get into Boston but cars for anything within Newton as it stands today. It’s not that people are going to use a car instead of taking the GL, they’ll use Riverside but they’ll -also- use their cars around Newton and there’s not a high amount of confidence that impact has been quantified.
Now the question itself, I think that’s little more than semantics. “Transit Oriented” is just a label. We could call it Transit Oriented, Highway Oriented or a Greg Oriented Development without changing anything about the site. I did cringe a bit at that argument as it distracts from the more concrete concerns – while I thought the LFIA was overly excessive on some of their restrictions they also raised valid concerns about the impacts to traffic and infrastructure that we should be looking at. Something this size has more of an impact than just Grove St, it’s going to potentially impact Lower Falls, Auburndale, West Newton and the analysis should be more than what would be done for a twenty unit proposal. To Amy’s point we should also be looking at why the transit improvements are limited to highway access and what additional improvements could be considered to mitigate the infrastructure impacts and improve the actual rapid transit potions of the site. I don’t care about whether it’s TOD or HOD, I care about how it moves the needle on improving both our transit and housing without just shifting the traffic to LF/Auburndale/WN.
It’s not correct to say that improvements are only happening for automobiles.
The T is presently upgrading the D line tracks to allow for new cars that will add 50 percent capacity. They will also eventually roll out a new fare collection system that will also speed up service.
It won’t be perfect but it will be improved.
I take the D train to and from the city fairly often and would agree the ride from Riverside to Longwood would not be longer than a half-hour. Riverside is transit-oriented development in the purest sense.
@Jack – perhaps it says it is not walkable for errands because right now it is a giant parking lot.
Transit-oriented development doesn’t mean that the site can’t also be car-oriented, unfortunately.
The real game changer, what would make Riverside a real multi-modal transit hub, is the commuter rail spur, and the developer knows this. Given Mark Development’s significant interests along the Washington Street corridor, it’s up to them to be the catalyst here. Simply adding the density isn’t enough. They’re going to have to pitch in, as developers did at Boston Landing, to improve transit that they will eventually profit from. The permit will also have to be written in such a way that the developer will have a vested interest in public transit modal share.
You guys know what’s REALLY NIMBY?? The fact that Chestnut Hill won’t allow any cell towers around the T Stop!!
Makes the long and sucky Green Line commute even worse!! Perhaps the Newton Needham Chamber can focus some energy on getting that fixed. Helps both business and Newton common folk like myself.
🙂