Red Line Analysis
Broadway-Ashmont
​
We analyzed the red line using a combination of social and physical capacity variables. Using the framework we developed as a class, we identified Fields Corner Station as our Red Line node.
For phase 1, the Red Line was examined based on social need and equity. The percentage of cost burdened owners, cost burdened renters, and percentage of low income households were varied across the stations. However, there were 2 stations that stood out to the team; those stations were Fields Corner and Shawmut, with 3.4 and 3.1 equity scores respectively. With 2 stations with very close scores, we had to use the physical variables to help us decide which node to select.
Red Line Analysis of Physical Capacity and Equitable Development Opportunity
Physically, Andrew Station was a clear stand out for available vacant private and government owned land with 3.2 physical capacity score. That being said, Andrew Station had the lowest equitable social variable score, so as a group we decided to consider Fields Corner. Fields Corner has the second highest physical capacity score (2.5) and the highest social variable score.
Fields Corner is our chosen node because it has the best opportunity for sustainable housing development of all the transit nodes we analyzed on the red line. This node provided the highest equitable development score and physical capacity score combined. In addition, it had the highest equitable development score of all the nodes we looked at. As aforementioned, there was only one other node (Andrew) that scored higher for physical capacity than Fields Corner did, but Andrew’s equitable development score was the lowest of all the nodes we looked at. There is a very high percentage of both cost burdened renters as well as cost burdened owners around the Fields Corner transit node.
​
