A New Hope for Republicans

Recent events give me hope for the Republican Party.  I'm not talking about hope that Democrats will win all upcoming elections or that Republicans will see things my way.  I'm talking about an opposition force to the Democrats that is at least reasonable and doesn't attempt things such as holding the government hostage.

Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats recently passed a budget.  Yes a budget, not a continuing resolution, an actual budget.  The next step is to pass the omnibus bill, a large bill combining many spending bills into one.  The omnibus bill is how we actually spend the money.  I'll be watching anxiously to see if the moderate Republicans can maintain their self-governance and actually pass the omnibus.  This could be the turn in the tide that has been leading us toward an inability of Congress to get anything done.

I know I'm further left, politically, than just about anybody in Congress, and certainly further Left than any Republican there, but this gives me hope.  It's more important to me to take small steps in the right direction and keeping the government functioning than it is that the Democrats win big in small spurts.  Democrats need Republicans to help keep them in line and pushing forward.  What Democrats don't need is an opposition party set in stone to oppose anything Democrats put forth simply because it was put forth by Democrats.  That this latter path seems to be what the Republicans are moving away from now.  Not all Republicans are moving away from it, however, but the ones that are give me hope for the future.  Here's to you, mainstream Republicans, may you persevere and not be beaten by another wave of Tea Party candidates.

"Compromise" and the Tea Party

"Compromise!"  This is the current face the Tea Party Republicans are presenting to the public.  That being said, their tactics were extremely public just days ago.  They said, in a very public way, that they were going to hold the Federal Government hostage in order to try to do what they've been trying to do for the last 3 years: remove the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from law. 

So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise?  They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right.  Yep, that's compromise.  Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise.  It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation."  The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented.  The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion.  Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time.  I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior.  So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use. 

O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law.  Too little too late in my opinion.  I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option.  Enough is enough.  While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog.  And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.

Republicans and Democrats switched places, deal with it

The past week saw the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, one of the great events of the civil rights push of the 1960s.  I saw a Facebook meme about how the Republicans were the ones that were fighting for African American rights and Democrats were the ones arguing against them.  The meme suggested that Democrats are wrong when they attack Republicans on racism grounds.

This is an interesting argument.  What it doesn't take into account is that the Democrats and Republicans essentially switched sides on this issue in the early 1900's.  They also switched strongholds.  Democrats used to be stronger in the South and Republicans in the North.  Then in the early to mid 1900's, that flipped too.

These days, Republican establishment and the Tea Party trend toward being racist and Democrats tend to be liberal.  For evidence, all you have to do is look at the recent elections, the comments made by various Republican candidates, and the attendance of the 50th anniversary celebration in D.C.  No Republican leader (and there were more than a few, including every member of Congress) came to the 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington.  Yep, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada.  "Well, there probably weren't that many speakers, right?"  Hm, how does approximately 35 speakers, including 3 Presidents (all Democrats) sound?

Well, surely that's just because of scheduling conflicts.  I wonder if we can find any other examples of the leaders of the Republican party being racist.  Surprisingly, I can.  Here's a couple interesting articles on this exact topic that I definitely suggest you read:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/56437/it-s-bizarre-and-ridiculous-how-racist-republicans-are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/correcting-rand-paul-on-t_b_3064617.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/legendary-gop-strategist-_b_2132029.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/tea-partiers-battle-racis_b_564211.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/21/1225346/-Yes-The-Republican-Party-Is-Racist#

Seriously, though, look at Congress and tell me there's proper Republican representation by minorities.  Look at what was said in response to Obama getting nominated and then elected.  Look at the fact that Congress reviewed studies and confirmed that various Republican controlled states still need to be overseen when it comes to voting laws and redistricting (yes, the Supreme Court said the states don't need to be watched, but they said that the reason was because Congress hadn't changed the laws enough.... so, something hasn't been resolved and you stop trying to resolve it?)

I'm not saying Republicans are racist, I'm just saying their leaders are, both those in government as well as those in the media.  O.k., I'm also saying that a vast majority of the more socially conservative Republicans are too ;-)

Public Meetings - How To Keep The Discussion Progressing

Someone recently asked my mother how we can work better with others to make sure we don't come to a point in public discussions where the sides are so polarized and unwilling to work with eachother that the atmosphere is toxic and unmanageable.  To explore this question, I thought I'd write my thoughts on it.

The most important thing you can do is to keep an open mind and think before you speak.  This is simple when you say it, but there are a lot of things to consider both in keeping an open mind and thinking before you speak.

Think Before You Speak: Consider your audience.  Their desires are likely at odds with yours if you're considering these steps.  As such, you must consider a few things before you speak your mind.

• Is there a rationale you haven't found yet?  Don't just assume that whatever they're saying is to be taken at face value or interpreted the way you have taken it.
• What's their current emotional state?  Yes, arguing and getting angry comes easy and naturally when having heated discussions, but keep in mind that the more angry and heated you become, the more angry and heated they'll become for a number of reasons, and the less forward progress you'll make in the discussion.   You should also keep in mind that there are a couple different reasons that things you say may cause a rampant increase in anger and a rapid closure of dialogue:
• "They're not listening to me." - When people feel that you're talking past their concerns without addressing them, they start to wonder what the point in talking is.
• "They're treating me as an inferior." - Nobody likes to think that others think poorly of them.  When they do feel that way, it can lead them to not speak up about their position or explain themselves in a manner that's helpful.
• "They don't care about my concerns." - Similar to not being listened to, when someone just dismisses out of hand what another person cares about, it creates a confrontational barrier that will likely be harder to bring down than it was to build.
• What's YOUR emotional state?  Are you getting upset?  Are you getting fed up?  Chances are that others are too.  Chances are also good that you're not communicating as well as you could be and starting to unintentionally act hostile.

Open Mind: We've covered preventing others from locking down, now we'll cover why you shouldn't lock down either.

•  You're not the expert on everything.  Even if you're the expert on one subject matter, every discussion has many facets and as such there are others that will be experts.  Additionally, even experts sometimes disagree.
• You haven't heard everything.  So help me, I swear to you that you have not heard everything, so listen and you may learn of a different perspective or a different study that you haven't read or a different issue effecting the discussion.
• What's their emotional state? (revisited)  When you have an open mind, you're asking questions, you're listening to the concerns of others, you're delving deeper into those concerns.  All of these activities help those others that may oppose you (and even those who agree with you) feel like they're being more productive and listened to.  It's so much easier to keep everybody talking in a helpful way and progressing the conversation when everybody feels like they're being heard and understood.
• What's your emotional state? (revisited)  Asking questions and consciously trying to keep an open mind can help you be more agreeable as well.  Don't forget that your anger will put up the walls just as quickly as theirs does.

In short, keep the walls down both on your end and theirs by actively paying attention to others and trying to understand their point of view.  The more you learn about their concerns, the better you can address them and move the conversation forward.  If you let the walls come up on their end before you address their concerns, they may never accept that their concerns have been addressed and may not allow the conversation to progress.

Let me know if you have other thoughts on this matter, I'd certainly welcome input.

Snow...

Boston just got pummeled with the 5th largest snowfall in one storm in recorded history with 24.9 inches recorded in Logan Airport and reports ranging from 18 inches to 30 inches in various parts of Massachusetts.

The response this year was interesting to say the least and has brought forward a few thoughts.  Before I begin with these contemplations, let me just say that I think the City of Somerville did a fine job with moving the snow and definitely did its part to raise awareness and keep everybody informed as to what was going on (this morning, there was a post on Facebook and less than half an hour later a reverse 311 call out to residents to let us all know that the parking ban would remain in effect through tomorrow and when we'd need to get our cars out of the municipal lots so that work could be done on those lots).  A good job indeed.  A day later, I feel that I would have no trouble driving the streets of Somerville safely and I salute the efforts made by all those who have worked the long hours to get us to this point.

That being said, a statement made before the worst of it on Friday keeps ringing in my ears: "we will be plowing to the curb."  The reason for this statement is obvious.  Two years ago, we had a series of storms that left us just as pummeled as we are now, less tired because it was more gradual, but just as unable to get the snow out of the way.  My yard was just as full then as it is now, making it difficult to catapult the snow over the embankments and into the center where it might not fall back down onto the sidewalk.  Two years ago, emergency vehicles were unable to reach a poor soul in need and we found ourselves with a fatality due to the limitations of streets imposed by encroachments of the snow banks.  Plowing to the curb was music to my ears on Friday, for it meant that, while there would be some narrowing of streets, they wouldn't be multiple feet narrower but rather maybe a foot narrower, allowing for emergency vehicles to, for the most part, get where they need to go, and for cars to pass each other on most streets.  Friday night would have been the time to enforce this plan, but as I shoveled my walk, I saw plows coming through with the usual plan of just clearing a path for cars, not plowing to the curb.  The plan, if it were to be followed through on, should have been to start plowing to the curb with the first plow-runs.

Again, I feel the city has done a fine job, but perception is perception and does not necessarily take into account the intellectual knowledge that the city had a herculean task in front of it and did the best they could.  The city sent out a notice this morning that did not help its case much.  The notice on Facebook included "2. PLOWING: If your street has not been plowed, please report it to 311. If you street was not plowed exactly to the even-side curb or if some snow was plowed onto the sidewalk, please understand that this was an extraordinary amount of snow. It may be this was the only option on your street. If you remain concerned, please report the issue to 311."  So... let me get this straight, people complained that the street was not plowed exactly to the even-side curb and others complained that the snow was plowed onto the sidewalk?  First, again, perception weighs heavily and I'm sure there are some that would be upset about each option.  That being said, the statement on Friday was that we would be plowing to the curb, which forces the snow to be plowed onto the sidewalk.  It's a simple boolean since we don't have the facilities to simply remove the snow as it falls, we move it to the side, which is how you come to "side walk" because it's the "walk" on the "side" of the road.  To make it painfully clear, if you're going to plow to the edge of the street to remove the snow from the street, you're going to be putting that snow off the edge and onto whatever is next to the street.  I understand that the city needs to try to send a message of apology to each side, and there's certainly no easy answer to the complaints and what they came out with is admirable, but it leaves some room for improvement.  If this wasn't going to be an extraordinary amount of snow, would we really have tried to plow to the curb?

But enough about the city.  As frustrated I am by the messaging, I do feel they did a good job and have done a fantastic job keeping the residents aware of the ongoing work and the emergency status.

On to the public.... oh the public.  I admit, I didn't shovel the sidewalk at our driveway on Friday night, but I shoveled to the other edge of my property and shoveled out to the street since I wasn't going to shovel the entire block out.  Saturday, we shoveled this path again since another foot and a half had fallen, and this time also shoveled to meet up with our neighbor's efforts near our driveway.  In the morning, as I was shoveling, I saw some neighbors shoveling into the street on the other side, where the plows would push the snow directly into a driveway.  I don't blame these neighbors, they have no yard to shovel into and thus, with the 3 foot high snow piles around them, had no decent place to put the snow, but all the same, I don't imagine they were thinking of our cross-street neighbors as they went out clearing out their own driveway.  I went for a walk through our neighborhood later in the day around 4 and found that some of our neighbors hadn't shoveled, and some had only shoveled their driveway out (though not the sidewalk in front of the house) and had decided to shovel onto the sidewalk in front of their neighbor's property, creating a wall in the middle of the sidewalk, not on the side of the walk either near the fence or the street, but all along the side walk, creating a further 6 inches of snow.  I can only begin to express my frustration with each of these scenarios.  

First of all, it is our civic duty to clear our sidewalks, to make them passable so that people don't have to walk in the narrowed streets.  The streets aren't just narrowed, but they're also treacherous to walk on by the sides, slippery with slush, ice, and snow.  It's the least we can do to make sure our sidewalks are passable by the able-bodied (I'm not going to even get into how oppressed the handicapped are in these times, I have no solutions for this scenario for them and I would hate to be in their shoes even more now than in other, less hostile times of the year).  

Second, we should encourage people who are building new structures to take snow storms into account.  My house has a front yard, which is fantastic for putting snow in, though it's a good bit higher than the sidewalk so I have to lift the snow a bit when throwing it in.  I never have to throw snow onto the street, which just increases the snow being pushed to the sides of the streets, blocking us all in again.  Not everyone is as fortunate as I am, but everyone should be and everyone could be.  If we just built our houses 5 feet in from the sidewalk, or, where we want to have porches, place the porches 5 feet in from the sidewalk, then we would have the opportunity to have small front yards which would serve the function of a place to put the snow as well as, in warmer times, the potential for a prettier landscape.

Third, we should be mindful of our actions and their effects on those around us.  When we shovel, we should avoid just shoveling to a place which would be hurtful to others, whether that be the street just beside our neighbor's driveway, or into our neighbor's sidewalk.

I certainly don't have all the answers, or even most of the answers, but it seems that civility is a good starting point.  Let me know any solutions you have, I'll be interested to read them.

Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers part 3 - McGrath Highway

Alright, this has been a little over a half year brewing in my mind: the debate about grounding the McGrath Highway. 

Let's skip past the question of whether we should sure up the elevated stretch while we plan for the future, because that's happening, as it should be.

There's been a lot of discussion of how the McGrath Highway should be restructured as a ground-level roadway.  Some people are calling for it to be much more like a city street, with only 1-2 lanes each direction and slower speed limits.  Somerville Patch did a non-scientific poll which suggested that you could only ground McGrath OR leave it as a thoroughfare, but not both, which seems a little off to me, since you could certainly ground McGrath AND have it be a thoroughfare, which would make it closer to the way Broadway west of McGrath operates.  My general feeling is that it's partly this limited mindset that gets us into trouble.  The idea that we can only either make this road more pedestrian friendly or we can maintain as a cars-only roadway seems extremely limiting in the scope of what we can do.  Let's delve into some of the more specific proposals/arguments.

Part of the idea of grounding McGrath and making it into a smaller roadway is that then local businesses will magically crop up and have a chance to be successful.  I would point out that we already have plenty of locations for local businesses where local businesses are not popping up and being successful.  We have empty storefronts in almost every square.  Magoun Sq., for instance, is the intersection of 3 major roads that have 1-2 lanes each direction, and there are more empty storefronts on the 1-lane streets than there are on the 2-lane streets.  Why should we believe that the path along McGrath Highway would be any different?  It's not like there's a lack of traffic going through Magoun Sq. on those 1-lane streets. 

Another rationale for making the roadway smaller is the idea that we don't want traffic to go through our city that isn't utilizing our city.  There are a few problems this idea:

• People FROM Somerville drive on this roadway to get places.  It makes it much easier for me if I can drive from my house in Magoun Sq., up Medford St., merge with the McGrath Highway and go either north to Assembly Sq (no, I will not call it Assembly Row, that's ridiculous), or places in Medford/Malden (such as BJ's), or south to Target, the East side of Union Sq. or, yes ~gasp~, Cambridge's East side (I have friends there and a couple times each year go to CambridgeSide Galleria).  If you remove how easy it is for me to get places, why am I paying a premium to live in such a well connected location?  Oh, that's right, because I'm moving away to live in some other well connected location or moving to where it's cheaper.
• People drive TO Somerville.  Just as I take McGrath to go to Assembly Row, people in Cambridge will as well.  Just as I take McGrath to get to East Union Sq., there are others from outside of Somerville that do the same exact thing.
• What's wrong with people driving through our city?  In theory, those people might even stop and spend money in our city, no?  If someone's driving home and they're going to do some grocery shopping on the way, wouldn't you rather they do it in our city than somewhere else?
• One last reason why this is a ridiculous rationale: you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  A study was performed recently that shows that people enter and leave McGrath at each on/off section in equal numbers.  That means people enter McGrath from Medford St in equal numbers as people leave McGrath to get onto Medford St.  Which means, drum roll please, people don't use McGrath, for the most part, to drive THROUGH Somerville, they use McGrath to drive TO/FROM Somerville.

There's also the thought that McGrath's being raised creates a division within the city.  This point certainly is an issue, but I think it's one that needs to be thought through a bit more.  It's not like crossing McGrath at Broadway is super-easy, and that's just one street intersecting with McGrath.  At Washington St, you have, of course, Washington St crossing McGrath, but you also have the same spot intersecting with Linwood, and, at the moment, the combined traffic from Somerville Ave and Medford St that is heading North joining in as well.  A pedestrian crossing McGrath at this section, therefore, has a rough time figuring out where the traffic is coming from and when.

In fact, the combination of Medford St, Somerville Ave, Linwood, and Washington St in this short period, along with the high volume of traffic intersecting with McGrath, is what makes the raised segment of McGrath such a difficult pathway to resolve.  Speaking as a resident of Somerville that uses McGrath in this segment, I know first hand that there are traffic jams even with the off ramps in place that separate out over a block of 1 lane offshoots that therefore don't interfere with the traffic moving past these two off ramps.  These traffic jams can back up 2-3 city blocks at times, so this is not insignificant jammage.  Then there's the on ramp from Washington/Linwood/Somerville Ave/Medford St coming north, which is an accident waiting to happen, especially if you're trying to get to Medford St going west.  Grounding McGrath won't resolve any of this on its own, and, if planned poorly, will make the problems we have today much much worse.

There's one more item to keep in mind: the railroad.  Part of why the McGrath Highway current has an elevated section has to do with the 2 bridges it has in the space of 6 blocks, one of which brings the roadway up to level with the surrounding area.  Somerville is full of hills, and on runs approximately Cedar St., up Highland Ave., and ends approximately at the northern edge of the elevated section of McGrath.  The more you change elevation, the less efficient vehicles become, so for those driving from Highland Ave to the Twin City Plaza (called Twin City because the stores are in Somerville but the parking lot is in Cambridge) would operate most efficiently if they do not have to go down at the edge of the hill that Highland Ave runs along and then back up to go over the railroad tracks that go by the Southern section of the elevated segment of McGrath.  Efficiency isn't everything, but it's one more thing to consider, as are the two railroad crossings this major artery has.

There are, of course, many options we could take with McGrath:

1. Keep the elevated segment.  The negatives are obvious:
1. The negatives on this one are the obvious ones that many are talking about:
1. Eye-sore: Yes, one major reason to remove the elevated section is the disruption it causes to line of sight.
2. Multi-modal: The currently layout is not very multi-modal friendly.  As mentioned above, it can be dangerous for pedestrians, but bicycling is even worse while traveling east-west on Washington St, unless you transform into a pedestrian while moving across the area.  Traveling from Somerville Ave. to Twin City Plaza is actually o.k. for the most part, and going from Somerville Ave. to BrickBottom or Linwood couldn't be much easier.  Sure, it's a little inconvenient if you're trying to get from Somerville Ave to directly across McGrath (you have to walk down to BrickBottom and follow the street along, so you go around 2 blocks out of your way)
3. Drivability issues: If we leave the elevated segment as it currently exists, it seems less likely that we'll address the issues for drivers, and as mentioned above, yes, there are indeed issues for drivers.
4. Cost: Let's face it, bridges are expensive.  Having the elevated segment be brought down to ground level very likely decrease the cost of construction and upkeep.
2. The benefits are less often discussed or acknowledged as benefits:
1. Car/truck traffic flow along the corridor: Indeed, as mentioned above, it's much easier for those of us trying to bypass 1 or 2 exits to have the option to go straight from Medford St to whichever exit we're trying to get to.
2. Multi-modal: I know, this was one of the negatives, but if you're redoing some of the segment, you could add better path-markers for those looking to go from point A to point B, and you could add better flow for pedestrians (I'm thinking in particular of the Washington St intersections, both north/south and east/west.  I'll explain why this is a benefit of this option by explaining the negatives for multi-modal in the other options.
3. Overall Score: B-
2. Ground the elevated segment but leave the layout as close to how it is currently:
1. Let's switch things up and go with positives first:
1. Cost: Yes, it's almost definitely cheaper to maintain an at-ground-level roadway, probably also cheaper to set things up for the next 40-60 years (demolition would be expensive, but shoring up would be more expensive probably)
2. Line-of-sight: You will definitely have a better sight-line to Linwood St and Joy St... and the train tracks.... congratulations on being able to see the bridge crossing Washington St.
3. Better for businesses: O.k., fair enough, you'll have some better visibility to ground-level businesses, but as discussed above, this doesn't necessarily mean businesses will flourish... so I don't know that this is really a positive.
2. Negatives, ah, the negatives nobody points out:
1. Multi-modal: Yes, you've brought everything to ground level, but now instead of crossing 1-2 lanes of traffic at a time, you've got to cross around 6-8, and again, this is a more difficult area to cross than at Broadway.  
2. Multi-modal!: So you've made passage by pedestrians more difficult, you've also made it more difficult for cars, because now they've got to stop even if they're not intending to stop at each intersection.  The traffic jams you have now probably get even worse because now you're making things a bit more complex, and complexity usually slows things down.  The complexity isn't only the car flow but also the pedestrian traffic, as pedestrians now need to be given the opportunity to cross more lines of traffic instead of just 1 or 2.
3. Overall Score: C-
3. Ground the elevated segment and shrink the roadway:
1. Positives:
1. Cost: See option 2 above.
2. Line-of-sight: again, see option 2 above.
3. Better for businesses: see option 2 above.
4. Multi-modal: Ah, now we're finally seeing true benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists.  With the shrinkage of the roadway, not only will you have fewer lanes to cross, but likely, people will slowly stop driving down it as much, and presumably less traffic will be better for pedestrians.
2. Negatives:
1. Multi-modal: O.k., so you've made it better along this area for pedestrians, you've also made it much worse for drivers.  Are you secretly hoping to drive Twin City Plaza and the Target on Somerville Ave out of business?  Are you hoping that people will flood the neighboring streets in search of better pathways?  I'm sure that the folks that live on Prospect Hill will be thankful that their skinny streets are being utilized more.  Or are you just hoping that people like me will stop driving in that area of the city, in which case, I have to ask again, are you hoping Twin City Plaza and the Target on Somerville Ave will go out of business?!?  City planners have understood that if they expect the Assembly Square area to flourish, they need a good car/truck solution for the area, and have thus spent a lot on the roads there and made sure that driving to/from this area and getting to/from 93 or 28 or 16 is easy.  Why wouldn't they want people from Assembly Sq to be able to get to the rest of Somerville?
3. Overall Score: C- (you've increased benefits to those who live nearby and don't want to have a Target or successful large businesses in their backyard but at the expense of having those large businesses nearby or EVER making the inner belt more successful)
4. The (mini) Big Dig (that's right, we could spend a ton of cash to bring the roadway underground):
1. Positives:
1. Line-of-sight: again, see option 2 above.
2. Multi-modal: Damn straight it's multi-modal!  Now, instead of having multiple lanes of traffic to cross, you have the entrances/exits only again.
3. MULTI-MODAL: Unlike both grounding options, you can maintain the flow of traffic going through both intersections (Somerville Ave and Washington St).
4. Pleasant for pedestrians and neighbors: Imagine, if you will, a park going along from Washington St to Somerville Ave.  Traffic trying to get from Somerville Ave onto the McGrath Highway could be routed further east to Linwood and then north to meet up (as it does now) with the traffic entering from Washington.
2. Negatives:
1. Cost: HOLY CRAP, COST!  Yes, this option probably far exceeds the costs of the other 3 options.
2. Short term disruptions: Neighbors would have to deal with not only the short term traffic problems but also the noise and pollution of major reconstruction of the area... on the other hand, they also get the fourth positive above after it's all done.
3. Overall Score: Difficult to grade without knowing the costs of this option as well as the other options.

I hope you've enjoyed reading this breakdown of my thoughts about the McGrath Highway.  It's a lot, considering it's only 5 blocks of roadway, but it significantly impacts the community in more ways than I fear most are considering.  It's a complex situation and requires a lot of thought before we move forward, so I am thankful that the state decided to shore up the current layout and give itself the time to more fully weigh the options.

Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers part 2

O.k., here's the thing, pedestrians, there's been a lot of fuss over bicyclists wearing reflective gear so drivers can see them more easily, you should keep this in mind as you're walking around as well.  Yes, you're not on the street constantly, but be aware of where there is light and where there isn't so that when you do cross the street, you give drivers the best chance of seeing you.

Cities are trying to save energy by reducing lighting on streets and sometimes they don't figure out where the crosswalks are so they match up with lights, and sometimes the lights go out at the crosswalks, and sometimes pedestrians cross where there isn't a crosswalk.  As we reduce the overall light on streets, we need to be that much more aware of lighting and how things are perceived by people who are moving 6-8 times as fast as you.  Moving in and out of light means that drivers' eyes don't adjust as quickly and so if you're looking for something dark in the dark, you won't see it.  Ever sit at a campfire in the middle of the night, look at the flame and then look elsewhere?  Yeah, it's kinda like that for drivers.  It's much better to maintain a steady field of visibility.  I know that we're trying to save money by reducing the energy spent on lighting city streets (at least in Somerville) but by doing so we're making our streets more dangerous... and as long as we're doing that, pedestrians and cyclists need to take this into account (and perhaps we should plan our crosswalks to intersect with the best lighting of the pathetic lighting available).

On a similar note, make sure that you're not wearing dark colors when going out at night.  Too often I see people in dark colors crossing the street, assuming people can see them.  Tonight, there was a police officer in the middle of an intersection directing traffic, but he was all in black with his cruiser, flashing its lights, behind him... meaning that I could only see a silhouette and it took me a good couple seconds to make out that he was waving me to turn right (which had been my plan anyway).

Cities are also trying to make the roads more pedestrian and bike friendly.  This tends to mean better painted crosswalks, wider sidewalks, narrower streets, raised crosswalks, and bike lanes.  This is a great thing but it shouldn't get in the way of doing things more meaningful, like changing traffic patterns and understanding what really makes a difference.... but more on that later.

Taxes in Massachusetts

In recent months, I've heard about Massachusetts' sales taxes a couple times.  The complaint has been that Massachusetts charges taxes on the value of the item, not the discounted price (namely in regards to phones which are only bought at deeply discounted rates... name for me ANYBODY that has bought a phone for the actual not-discounted price please).  The sales tax in Massachusetts is 6.25%.  The sales tax jumped to this level from 5% in the last few years.  Here's the thing... at 6.25%, we're actually tied with 3 other states for 13th place for the highest sales tax.  Yes, that's right, 12 states have higher sales taxes than, Massachusetts, and 8 of those are higher than 6.8%.  Of our surrounding states, only New Hampshire really stands out as having much lower sales tax rates (0% for most things, 9% for prepared foods).  Connecticut is higher in general than Massachusetts with 6.35%.  Rhode Island is higher in general than Massachusetts with 7% and even higher for processed foods at 8%.  Vermont is lower in general, with 6%, but higher in some cities (additional 1%, making it 7% total) and has a 9% (or more in some cities) sales tax for prepared foods.  You might think that New York is lower with its 4% rate, but in some cities in New York, the overall rate jumps to 8.875%.  And all this discussion is over the sales tax on something that's generally around $600... I've heard of pinching pennies but $37.5 doesn't seem that big a deal to me.... admittedly, it's sometimes doubling the amount you're paying for the phone, but that's because the methodology of the sale of phones and phone coverage is broken, not taxes.  Still, $37.5 in taxes doesn't seem too much for something you buy every couple years, or am I missing something.

On the other hand, the additional taxes on prepared food could easily have a larger effect on your wallet.  Let's say you buy just $100/month of prepared foods per month, that's about 4 small lunches or 2 reasonably priced dinners per week and $1200/year.  New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont all charge at least a whole 1% more than Massachusetts.  New Hampshire and Vermont each charge 9% or more.  So on that food, you're being charged $108/year, $33/year more than in Massachusetts, or $66 every two years, which would cover the sales tax on your phone.  And that's a pretty reasonable prepared foods budget.  I know plenty of people who buy their lunch at the local lunch place every day and thus spend a lot more on prepared foods without even considering if they order out or go to a restaurant every now and then.

Oh, by the way, not to beat on New Hampshire too much, but they also have a 7% telecommunications tax.  Yep, they charge you for telecommunications specifically, making them and Louisiana the only states to do so.  I have yet to find any other state that has a tax on telecommunications at all, in fact.  But sure, telecommunications isn't a big ticket item... not like many people spend $50-100/month on it, which would be $3.50-$7 per month that New Hampshire residents are charged that Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont residents don't have to pay (that's $42-84/year, which, AGAIN, covers the tax on the phone you're buying FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS).

So, just consider that next time you think about the high sales taxes in Massachusetts.