Recap: Transit-Supportive Density in Greater Boston

January 30, 2025

The interplay of transit and housing was the focus of a convening at the Boston Foundation and streamed online on January 30. The chronic challenges of both subjects were cast in a fresh light in a new report, Transit-Supportive Density in Greater Boston, produced by TBF’s research arm, Boston Indicators, in partnership with Boston-based nonprofit TransitMatters.

Transit-oriented density is by now a familiar phrase, referring to efforts to build up housing and businesses around existing transit. This new report looks at it in the mirror—considering that transit relies on surrounding density to support optimal and frequent service. A chicken-and-egg conundrum, to be sure, but this report puts some numeric benchmarks in place to help visualize and guide how policymakers, advocates, and developers might inch forward to a mutually supportive expansion of both housing and transit service.

Boston Indicators Executive Director Luc Schuster opened the forum and introduced the authors, who presented different segments of the report. TransitMatters Executive Director Jarred Johnson shared case studies of other North American cities that have pursued transit-supportive density (and, in turn, were continuing to expand transit).

Boston Indicators Senior Research Analyst Lucas Munson explained the many ways density can be measured and defined the benchmark arrived at for this exploration: six housing units per acre as a minimum level to support transit and 16 per acre to support high-frequency transit service. Applying this metric to our current state reveals that hardly any stations in our rapid transit or commuter rail system meet the benchmarks. “We have a large transit infrastructure but don’t have the housing to correspond to it," he said.

TransitMatters Programs Director Katie Calandriello then offered an overview of what makes for good transit: 15 minutes or less between stops makes rapid transit successful, allowing user flexibility and reliable transfers. She shared three high-opportunity case studies—Forest Hills, Needham, and Brockton—with space for increased density that could boost existing service.    

The report’s review of other cities that have pursued transit-supportive density included the Washington, D.C. area. Executive Director of the nonprofit Greater Greater Washington Chelsea Allinger came to Boston (by train) to share some of her region’s experience. Her organization works on housing, transportation, and land use. Understanding that the people who go to community meetings on zoning and development matters tend to be those with ample time and financial wherewithal, and are often older White homeowners, Greater Greater Washington has pursued broader polling. Results have shown across various demographic slices that more than half of respondents approve of moderate density development. This is good information to have and to share. She said, “Most voters don’t communicate with their elected officials. And yet many say that housing informs their voting decisions.” She spoke of successes in the region since the 1960s but noted that despite being a national leader in production, the D.C. area is still around 75,000 units short of the projected need for 2030.

watch video of the event

The cover slide of the Transit Supprtive Density presentation Download the presentation slides

Agenda

Welcome
Luc SchusterExecutive Director, Boston Indicators

Research Presentation
Katie CalandrielloPrograms Director, TransitMatters
Jarred JohnsonExecutive Director, TransitMatters
Lucas MunsonSenior Research Analyst, Boston Indicators

Presentation Response
Chelsea AllingerExecutive Director, Greater Greater Washington

Panel Discussion and Q&A
Chelsea AllingerExecutive Director, Greater Greater Washington
Jarred JohnsonExecutive Director, TransitMatters
Jessie Kanson-BenanavExecutive Director, Abundant Housing MA
Luc SchusterExecutive Director, Boston Indicators (moderator)
Julia WallerceAssistant Director of Transportation, Metropolitan Area Planning Council

 

Allinger and Johnson were joined in a panel by Julia Wallerce, Assistant Director of Transportation at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, and Jesse Kanson-Benanav, Executive Director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts. They tackled the promise of bus system redesign, the challenges and opportunities of local control, the role of high rises, and more. The many-tools-in-the-toolbox theme was prominent. For instance, changing parking requirements for housing development. Removing minimum requirements won’t eliminate parking but will right-size it. Paired with bike lanes, walkable streets, and proximity to transit, it should reduce traffic and the use of traffic fear as an obstacle to development. As Wallerce said, “Traffic isn’t too many people; it’s too many cars.” Indeed, Kanson-Benanav added, “Unlocking zoning and building code reform will unlock production of housing.”

Bringing us back to density’s support of transit: “You won’t get the local grocery stores or small businesses or transit if you don’t densify,” said Johnson, who also noted, “When you restrict how much can be built, it’s going to all go to the high end.”

Allinger had the last word as time ran out on the enthusiastic audience Q&A that ended the forum, saying: “If you don’t build, you won’t stop people from coming or the population from growing. … We need to make it possible to build all kinds of housing.”