BackItUpWithLinks t1_jdwz70d wrote
There’s no reason for this to be allowed anywhere near residential
vexingsilence t1_jdx45vo wrote
That area has been industrial for a long time. Residential uses creeped up on it. Not saying I'm for or against.
BackItUpWithLinks t1_jdxfqjb wrote
Ok
> …the 250 to 300 diesel trucks that… would be traveling through the neighborhood once the plant is in operation wouldn’t significantly increase the noise.
> The company’s traffic specialist said traffic would remain normal, even though about 33 trucks are expected to circulate every hour for eight hours daily
Sure.
vexingsilence t1_jdyw0rp wrote
How is that a reply to my comment? The number of truck runs doesn't change the fact that residential areas have been creeping in on what has always been an industrial area. The rail yard is right near there too, if you needed any more indication of what the area is.
megagem t1_je1hqgb wrote
The area has been blighted forever and the obvious fix, converting it into high-density housing surrounding a functioning train station, always seems to be opposed by NIMBYs worried about bridge traffic.
vexingsilence t1_je1oxz5 wrote
Traffic is a major concern for that area. There's a lot of through traffic trying to get over the river, adding in local residential traffic and possibly even commuter rail traffic is just not going to happen without major changes. Whether that's severing Bridge/Canal St from the bridges and making it local traffic only or making both Bridge/Canal and East Hollis St one-ways.. something is needed.
Then there's the lack of schools in the area, a lack of recreation options (parks), it's not pedestrian or cyclist compatible. Who knows what the underground utilities are like... water and sewer.
If commuter rail does happen, they might want to consider access from the south, perhaps using Alds St somehow so the vehicle traffic isn't added to the bridge and local traffic on Canal/Bridge & East Hollis.
megagem t1_je2eyzg wrote
The great thing about bringing in additional residents is that you get additional taxes to help fund any needed infrastructure improvements, the existence of which you can use to issue bonds now to complete those projects ahead of time.
There is no need to do anything about traffic for a commuter rail station there. Build lots of housing in the area within walking distance, a grade separated cycling/PEV path network linking the greater downtown, improve general walkability, and include a nice drop-off/pickup loop and dedicated lanes for local buses. Don't build any car parking; the train is for people that aren't driving. If a park-and-ride option is desired, use an infill station next to the Pheasant Lane Mall, it's not like they're using the space these days.
There aren't any physical or financial limits preventing Nashua from making the downtown a much better place to live. They simply choose not to do so to benefit cars, like most cities and towns in the country.
vexingsilence t1_je495kq wrote
>complete those projects ahead of time.
Not sure how often that happens in reality. Building ahead of time creates risk. Populations rise and fall. Get it wrong and you waste a lot of money. The more likely case is that those kids are getting bussed to a distant location for a good number of years while city hall debates or ignores the problem. Hope they like getting up early. Water and sewer might be better at this, although we still dump overflow in the river for Lowell to have in their drinking water, so I'm skeptical.
​
>Don't build any car parking; the train is for people that aren't driving.
This mindset is great. Supporters can't convince enough people that commuter rail won't be a waste of money and your tagline is "it's not for you!" If you make it just for the handful of people that buy into new housing in that somewhat isolated section of the city, it's never getting built. There's no point having a train station for such a small area. People complain that the parking garages are too far from Main St, they're not walking any significant distance to get a train station, and no one is going to trust that a bicycle will still be there when they get back. Busses would just lengthen the already long amount of time it would take to travel all the way to Boston, ignoring any addition subway or bus time you'd need on that end.
​
>If a park-and-ride option is desired, use an infill station next to the Pheasant Lane Mall.
Why would people who live closer to downtown want to drive all the way to the Pheasant? They wouldn't. That's not how our society functions. If you omit a parking lot, people will leave cars anywhere they fit. Then you'd have parking bans, upsetting the locals, mass hysteria. You have to account for parking. Even the thought of having multiple train stops in Nashua is reaching. It's a long trip all the way to Boston, every stop is going to make it a little less viable for commuting. It's also not an area people will walk to and even if you wanted to risk locking up a bike or taking it with you, that area is deadly for cyclists.
>They simply choose not to do so to benefit cars, like most cities and towns in the country.
That's our culture. What's Nashua supposed to do? Ignore it? Like I said, then you'd have a bunch of cars that you purposely didn't plan for. Big cities might be able to get away with that somewhat, but not places like Nashua. Motor vehicles are the only practical option for most people.
Tullyswimmer t1_jdxmvtw wrote
Yeah, there's already a couple of manufacturing plants right across the river from the proposed spot. It's very industrial.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments