When Newton was debating its zoning, the Healey administration and Newton's congressman weren't too subtle about threatening to deep-six the commuter rail station rebuilds if something didn't get passed and if it didn't include more density around Auburndale.I realize the law is a bit clunky, and some work needs to be done to improve it, I do support the ultimate goal. However, could the MBTA simply say "If you don't follow our new law, you lose your train station?
When Newton was debating its zoning, the Healey administration and Newton's congressman weren't too subtle about threatening to deep-six the commuter rail station rebuilds if something didn't get passed and if it didn't include more density around Auburndale.
This doesn't seem like a good idea. We should want more and better public transit for everyone so that people actually use it and want it funded better. If we give towns the power to shut down transit, some might just want to. And the harms are unlikely to fall on actual decision makers. We could easily cut down our transit network for no benefit.However, could the MBTA simply say "If you don't follow our new law, you lose your train station?
