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.