what's driving up demand for urban lifestyles vs what's being built to accommodate itpic.twitter.com/4GlpJlC6tu
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
They could've rebuilt the station on its former site when the line was reopened. Instead, they put it outside of town, too far for people to easily walk, surrounded by parking. They used it as a pretext for even more sprawl, more driving, more untouched land getting built on!
On the other hand--maybe it was for the best that the station ended up far away. There's no building here, nowhere to shelter from the weather, nowhere to eat or drink, no staff on hand, nowhere to buy a ticket, no fare gates or security...it's just a long roof lolpic.twitter.com/09nQbXr5DO
Boston's commuter rail doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to stations in town centers--this is just a (very slightly) glorified sidewalk! Who in their right mind wants to wait here? Hot in the sun, wet in the rain, cold in wind or snow...boring and dangerous!pic.twitter.com/opim9RtLFB
In an urban setting or a rural one, people need NICE STATIONS where they will be happy to spend a little time waiting. No excuses!pic.twitter.com/FsQyyUyVB9
The reasoning has usually been "we don't want commuters taking up all the parking for downtown businesses" which I understand, but can be solved with proper parking regulations. Sure, now the businesses have plenty of parking, but at the cost of not having train access!
This has been one of the biggest mistakes of commuter rail expansion in MA: building stations in remote locations with large commuter parking lots, rather than in historic downtowns where people can also walk or bike to stations (and people can travel TO the town.)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.