My years of futility in Salem transit, part 2

Following up on my last post, I’m wondering why we just can’t get things done to improve our public transit and make our streets safer for pedestrians and people with disabilities.

I’m signed up with the MBTA to get service alerts for bus routes I regularly use, which would be the 450, 451, 455, 456, 459 and 465.  I just got an alert now:

Routes 455 & 459 are experiencing 15-20 minute delays due to traffic.

10/17/2011 4:07 PM

This has been a regular occurrence.  Normally, I’m not concerned about delays here and there because buses run in traffic and are susceptible to the same delays that affect motorists trying to go down 1A and 107 on their way to and from Salem.

But there’s been a disturbing increase in traffic congestion that has happened in all months at most times of the day in the North Shore.

The MBTA schedules have been severely affected;  looking at Route 456, the frequency of service is now 80 minutes.  That means 1 hour and 20 minutes between buses.  This route once ran hourly when it was established in 2002.  (The 456 is a busy route that serves Central Square by way of Highland Ave., and the many Lynn residents who shop and use the medical offices in Salem.)

The 450 has been affected as well.  In fact, during weekdays, none of the MBTA routes out of Salem Depot run hourly.  The 465 that serves the Peabody-Danvers shopping area runs about every 1 hour and 10 minutes (70 minutes).

Even on weekends, the 455W, Salem to Wonderland, no longer runs hourly, but also slips 5 minutes here and there throughout the day.

This single bus route is the most frequent, and busiest, of all of the MBTA’s Salem routes.  Before the 455 was split into the 455 and 459 routes (the latter going to Logan Airport and South Station on weekdays), it ran every 30 minutes, as does the 455W weekend service to Wonderland.

I have taken that route many times and I can tell you it is crowded.  If you come home from Boston and elect to get off the Blue Line at Revere Beach (one stop short of Wonderland), you will not get a seat on the bus.  (The bus shelter at Revere Beach is much nicer than the one at Wonderland so I board there any time I can.)

Remember also that the MBTA runs many, many other routes to and through Lynn, and to Swampscott and Marblehead.

Here is an exercise for those who doubt this:  Drive down either Route 1A (the Lynnway) or Route 107 (Western Ave.) and pull into a lot somewhere before Revere.  There are a number of Dunks around so pull in with a medium regular and your choice of donut.  Normal business hours are fine, day or evening.

Find an MBTA bus that is marked for service on its LED sign (other than “NOT IN SERVICE” or “NO STOPS”).  Count how many people are onboard;  you don’t need to be exact.

Count the buses and count the people.

You’ll probably find a lot more buses and a lot more riders than you think.  These people are heading to and from work, to and from doctor appointments, daycare, shopping and even church.

Critics of transit spending like to say that you can’t make demand by spending on big capital projects like, say, the Blue Line extension to Lynn.

But the people are already here!  They’ve been here for a long time.  They come whenever the latest condos get built on Highland Ave.

And those who don’t take the bus, drive.  Yes, I know I am in the minority of people who do not drive and yes I am lazy, didn’t overcome my disabilities, and so forth.  I know all that.

But I know, too, that in any urban area, when the density of people gets above a certain point, it’s time to consider investing in public transit, simply because the road networks will strangle the very communities that depend on them.

That time’s now.  It’s been “now” for years.

No public official will say this, because the scariest thing they could imagine is to have Barbara Anderson and the Tea Party at their door screaming “NO NEW TAXES!”  I’ve heard that before, I’ve heard it for years and years and years.

And, certainly, Salem is wealthy enough in the short term that the Tea Party platforms could “work”.

For a short while, anyway.

Will the shiny, happy, good, new (and rich) residents of Salem tolerate not being able to leave their driveway, not only in October, but year-round?  The traffic jams of Halloween in Salem are legendary, but the dirty truth is that they happen just as readily on a cold twilight afternoon in January.

I fear something even worse:  The Massachusetts Senate has approved a casino gaming bill.   In the bill, which still has to go to a conference committee to be finalized, there would be three destination casinos in the state.  One of them would be near Suffolk Downs.

The owners of Suffolk Downs have long looked to slot machines to provide the revenue they need to keep the horse track running;  horse racing as a sport has been on a long slow decline for decades and the track was once known as “Sufferin’ Downs” for good reason.

The owners recently bought Wonderland, the defunct dog track near the Blue Line that was closed after Mass. voters approved a referenda to ban greyhound racing.  Wonderland is where most people think a slot parlor may go on the North Shore.

It’s the northern end of the Blue Line.  And it is the worst migraine headache for me and all of us on the North Shore.  And it will happen.   There’s too much money being tossed around in executive suites and the State House to think otherwise.

Both my mayor and my rep, Driscoll and Keenan, are supporting casinos.  They’re doing so, I suspect, because of the hope of increased state revenue for cities and towns, the selling point most used by our state lottery, and they are hoping for infrastructure (roads & transit) improvements.

I’m not going to guess on the revenue, but I will guess that the casino operators won’t invest as much in the infrastructure as we would like.  They don’t need to.

They don’t need a Blue Line extension;  most of their customers will drive, and the few who don’t can be served by leasing a few dozen shuttle buses.  We’ll see them everywhere once the casino opens.  (They will also become the default recreational option for senior centers, but that is another matter.)

They won’t need to invest in anything else;  the casinos of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are, like most, self-contained so the visitor doesn’t need to go anywhere else.  Nowhere else but there to spend money!

Mayor Driscoll is deluding herself if she thinks this won’t ripple into Salem’s tourist revenue.

What casinos will surely do is clog up the roads and make it impossible for anyone in buses or cars to get around.

Unless, of course, you are going to the casino yourself.  That will be easy.

Otherwise, not so much.  The decay of the T will continue and no one will care.  What have I been doing for 4 years, again?  Will it matter?

Bridge Street Reconstruction Begins

Salem Jail Park 2010-03-13 006, originally uploaded by dmoisan.

Bridge St. reconstruction starts today. There'll be an informational meeting at the Carlton School tomorrow night at 7. I won't make that meeting. The neighborhood is no stranger to construction projects like the Veterans Riverway and the Veterans Memorial bridge, and this project is the end of an overall plan spanning over 30 years.

This Salem News article has the usual cynical commentariat about flagmen, corrupt officials and lazy workers.  Yawn.  I love how there are always magical private sector pixies about that would finish projects instantly if we only stood back and let them.  I seem to recall, though, reading over the years of private sector, excuse me, Private Sector contractors getting paid by the day and padding projects.

My colleague Charlie will bear it worse than I will since I live a good distance south of the construction.

(For such a “tiny insignificant greenspace”, it’s remarkable just how much it insulates me from most traffic, especially since I’m just feet away from moving cars on the Ash St. side of my parking lot.)

Stranding Seniors

I’ve written before about transportation for seniors and the disabled.  Another story came out over the holidays.

The Globe profiles one Marblehead resident:

It’s the spur-of-the-moment trips that June Casler misses most, the spontaneous decision to catch a 7 p.m. movie or to pick up a coveted book at the library. The octogenarian hung up her car keys for good when she moved from western New York to Marblehead in June because she felt that negotiating busy, unfamiliar streets could be distracting and dangerous.

Casler has since discovered that the local Council on Aging van doesn’t run nights or weekends and requires 24-hour advance notice. She doesn’t want to burden her son and daughter-in-law, who live nearby, for rides during the van’s off hours. But neither does she want to end up like one of her 90-year-old friends who could barely see but was still behind the wheel - until her family called police to intercede.

We have been heading for a collision for some time.  We’ve built our society around the car and deemphasized other options so that the car and its needs have become a massive hidden subsidy imposed on cities, towns and the state.

At the same time, the cohort of seniors that remember life without easy transport—the car life—is dwindling.  My late mom remembers streetcars, trains, walking, buses and even horses.  Seniors today and those soon-to-be-seniors have few such memories and baby boomers have none:  They have always enjoyed life with the car.

I wonder, as well, if the “nuclear family” philosophy of the boomers has contributed.  I heard any number of stories in high school of students reaching 18 and their parents showing them the door, politely or not. 

How can one square this with the sentiment I’ve also heard over and over, that “your kids owe you” to look after you in your old age?  Many adult children are scattered across the country, since mobility is valued, preferred and even necessary for some.

There will be another attack of outrage when a senior is involved in a traffic accident, but I fear we’re not going to do much.  Easy to be mad at some poor 80-year old that runs down a kid, but hard to admit that your city’s development philosophy is flawed or that we’ve been trying to segregate our seniors for 50 years and it doesn’t work. 

Real resolution of this would be expensive.  So we won’t see progress.

Truthfully, seniors have every incentive to dodge the eye doctor and drive no matter what.  It’s the only way they’re really independent.

Ms. Casler took the high road;  I just wonder if she’s regretting it.

More Frustrations with HP Parking Enforcement

Last post I mentioned one of the hot buttons of the Salem Commission on Disabilities, sidewalk access.  Recently, Ken Bonacci, a colleague and former member of the Commission, brought up another frustrating situation for us over the years:  Handicapped parking violations at Salem Depot, and elsewhere around the city.

Ken has been very forward in dealing with the situation, more than most people would contemplate.  The MBTA police have directed him to stop:

Lenehan [Lt. Robert Lenehan, MBTA Police] said the T asked Ken Bonacci, a former Disabilities Commission officer, to stop approaching cars that are illegally parked in handicapped spaces and asking drivers to move, in part, out of concern for Bonacci's safety.

The MBTA recently received a two-page letter, apparently written by a commuter, complaining about the enforcement actions. As a result, Lenehan sent an officer to the Salem train station to speak with Bonacci.

The transit police want to make sure the well-intentioned enforcement actions of Bonacci and other volunteers working with the local commission don't result in a confrontation with an angry motorist, the T official said.

The article goes on to explain what the Commission has done:

Disability Commission members were trained several years ago by the Salem police in volunteer enforcement of handicapped parking violations, Harris said. They used to take photos of cars, write down license plate numbers and turn the information over to police, who would then issue parking tickets.

They were also given identification badges, which Bonacci said he places against the driver's window to identify himself before speaking to a motorist or asking a driver to move.

"He was doing exactly what ... the commission was trained to do," Harris said. "He just knocks on a window and politely explains that they're in a handicapped spot and they don't have a placard or plate and need to leave."

As part of the training, Salem police emphasized the need to avoid any kind of confrontations, Harris said.

The Commission has had a long history of frustration with HP parking enforcement and we have experimented with some different approaches, including the one mentioned in the article.

At one point a few years the Salem PD gave us "informational" ticket booklets which were to be forwarded to the Parking Department. Originally, the informational citations were to be a kind of green stamp; if a driver collected several, there would be points on the insurance and a real citation.

When we asked about the disposition of the tickets, we were told they would be thrown away. We gave up on that one.

The Salem PD tried volunteering us to go around with digital cameras, when the technology was newer, to monitor HP parking spaces, but there weren't enough volunteers, nor was there the money to have the PD do it.

Our latest idea, so far, isto get funds to pay a detail to monitor parking, again at key spaces like the train station and downtown. This would relieve us from the situation that Ken was in.

I would not have done what he did in that situation. I use the train station regularly; I don't drive but I can easily walk to the handicapped spaces and see who's in them. I wouldn't have confronted anyone. But Ken is a very forward person. He did this on his own initiative. That's why we respect him.

Ken was a very respected member of the Commission, and we consider him a dear friend. Ken has been my ideal as a commissioner for the 2 years I have held the position. 

With the turmoil surrounding the MBTA, we're not certain how the MBTA police will be able to enforce the spaces until the new station is built. I understand that on weekends the T police is so thinly staffed there is only one officer to serve an area from Boston to New Hampshire.

Nevertheless, we do hope to leave this to the police. We really do. But Ken did not act out of thin air, but out of the many years of frustration that drivers with disabilities have experienced.

Many of whom, by the way, will complain to us.  That’s OK, it’s our job to hear them, but as with our sidewalk issues, we are dependent on the police and the rest of the government to help us out.

No doubt, in the near future, we’ll be meeting with Chief Tucker to get some ideas on dealing with parking scofflaws without being cops ourselves.

Salem Commission on Disabilities hosts City’s five year plan public meeting

At tomorrow’s meeting of the Salem Commission on Disabilities, Jane Guy will be presenting the city’s 5 Year Consolidated Plan.

The meeting starts at 4 PM at Salem Access Television, 285 Derby St.

For anyone interested, we have a copy of the 100% design plan for the Bridge St. Reconstruction Project (from Howard St. to the Salem-Beverly Bridge) and will have it for inspection at 3 PM at the meeting.

Comments on the Salem Depot Project

These are comments I’ve sent to Thomas Rovero of the MBTA, and the mayor’s office on the proposed Salem Depot garage. There will be another public meeting sometime in December.

From: David Moisan, Salem Commission on Disabilities

To Thomas Rovero, MBTA, Mayor Kim Driscoll, chief-of-staff Jason Silva:

Dear Mr. Rovero, Mrs. Driscoll, Mr. Silva:

I’ve attended the public design meeting on the new Salem Depot garage and have read the report posted on the MBTA web site. I believe it is a good starting point and a very welcome development.

There are, though, some concerns I have with the design. The word that comes most to mind is isolation. There are elements of the design that serve to cut off train and bus riders from downtown.

First, I’ll grant that a good part of the isolation comes from the original design of the traffic rotary on Bridge St., and the original use of the Salem Depot area as a maintenance area, interlocking tower and track junction by the old Boston and Maine railroad. It had been occupied for this purpose by the B&M for many, many years.

At one point in the past, the pedestrian passage to Salem Depot (when it moved to Bridge St.) was fenced off from traffic. But it was still a very dangerous place to walk, and very unfriendly in any event. Not what we want to represent Salem to train travelers.

Any design would have to work hard to overcome these problems.

But some things that were proposed at the meeting just accentuate this isolation.

The existing train platform, and the proposed half-full height platform is one example. Wheelchair or cane users, and on the weekends, all users, must go to the very end of the platform.

From the end of that platform looking north, you can see the Carlton School on Bridge St., a full mile away.

It actually seems closer to the platform than downtown!

I remember when the depot moved to Bridge St., trains stopped much closer to the tunnel portal. A few years later due to ADA requirements, the mini-high was built and trains moved further up north.

I support the ADA. The ADA is not the problem. But I didn’t like and still don’t like going what seems like miles from the Bridge St. entrance to get a train.

I’ve read the report on the train platform. I understand the great difficulties involved in making a high-level curved platform accessible. But I must agree with my chairman on the Commission on Disabilities, Jack Harris, and push as hard as I can for a full height platform that can be reached a short distance from the garage.

My second point is the bus berths. I ride buses from Salem Depot frequently. For I and many other people downtown, Salem Depot is the closest place to get a departing bus, since most of the bus routes skirt downtown when they leave the station and there are no closer stops.

The preferred design alternative has the bus berths on the north side of the station, with the garage between the buses and the Bridge St. entrance.

As with the train platforms, this is almost as far as Carlton School! Perhaps when I need to take the 456 I should just walk up Bridge St. to the school.

I much prefer having the bus berths along one side of the garage, or even two, as it is in one alternative presented in the report.

And they must be sheltered or at least have canopies like the current bus shelters. Some bus routes run at 80 minute or even 90 minute headways so riders will want to use the train’s waiting room; in dead of winter with kids in tow they’ll need to.

On the waiting area, I want to see it on the platform side of the station, in sight of both the train tracks and the bus berths. People will have an eye out for their train or their bus.

There must be digital signage, and automated announcements. I’m aware the T is phasing in a new generation system; Salem must have it. We must be able to sit in the waiting area and hear , and see “The next train to…Newburyport…is now approaching”, similar to rapid transit announcements. Within the lifespan of the garage, there’ll be a similar technology for bus passengers so they’ll know how long until the next 455 comes. The design of the station must allow for these improvements.

My last comment is for the City of Salem.

As all of us know, the Courthouse project, and many other projects, are changing downtown.

The city is starting at a disadvantage; as noted in my opening paragraphs, the area of Bridge and Washington Sts. has never been made for pedestrians. Visitors, jurors and court personnel alike will use that intersection constantly.

The City must do what MassHighway has done for the recent Highland Ave. crossing reconstruction and put modern audible talking pedestrian signals at Bridge and Washington.

There’ll probably never be a footbridge or a tunnel in that area in my lifetime; neither are practical.

The city, and the MBTA will have to work very hard in the coming months to make this version of Salem Depot welcoming to commuters and visitors. They need to make Salem Depot part of Salem’s downtown once again, as it hasn’t been for over 50 years.

The design is a very good start. I’m looking forward to future meetings to make this the best it can be. I’ll probably be one of the first to go down the ramp into the new station when it opens.

Make me proud of it, and proud of my city.

First Thoughts on the MBTA Garage Proposal

As I mentioned in my last post, the MBTA has released design plans for the new Salem Depot.

Quoting the executive summary, these are the goals and highlights:

The intermodal center design will include 750-900 garage parking spaces, five bus
berths for MBTA buses, drop-off / pick-up parking spaces, taxi parking spaces, covered
storage, enclosed waiting, elevators, and an accessible ramp. The height and massing
of proposed structure will respect the historic context of Salem downtown. Exterior
building materials are anticipated to include masonry and brick in keeping with site
context and existing municipal buildings. All facilities will be designed to meet code
requirements and accessibility guidelines.
Four design options were developed to address the functional needs of Salem Station.

All options include the following features:
Six total parking levels (includes ground and roof levels)
Lower building height on Bridge Street side (4 stories at 44 feet tall)
Median building height on North River side (6 stories at 66 feet tall)
Clear pedestrian connection from Bridge Street to train platform via raised plaza
Additional vehicle ingress/egress from Washington/Bridge Street intersection
Higher grade level floor-to-ceiling height for buses and more natural light
Improved and direct handicapped access to train platform via covered ramp
Safer pedestrian access via dedicated sidewalks on city and river sides
Straight façade on Bridge Street side respects urban character of street
Scalloped façade on North River side breaks up building mass
Express ramps at center of building allow for safe and fast vertical circulation.

I believe the design is a good start.  We have not yet seen any drawings or conceptual views in the context of the existing parking lot, but it appears that the garage won’t impact on the North River vista, at least not any more than the other projects in the area, such as the court complex.

Many people, myself included, had the idea that the garage structure would be built right up to the ramp fronting Bridge St.  In fact, the Commission on Disabilities had debated this point a few years ago, during the first abortive attempt at a new depot design during the Usovicz administration.

Several commissioners had hoped that there would be direct access to the street from the parking garage.  Unfortunately (or fortunately) this isn’t going to be:  Salem owns and will continue to own the crescent of parking spaces just inside the entrance to the station.

So, there will be a pedestrian ramp from Bridge St. to the 2nd level of the new garage, which will pass over the traffic lanes at ground level.  The ramp can be seen in the opening illustration, in several variations;  some open, some enclosed.

Salem has very few enclosed ramps, and those all connect buildings:  The Salem State College Library to Meier Hall (soon to be demolished), the ramp that connects the Davenport building at North Shore Medical Center to Shaugnessy Rehab, and the newest ramp that connects One Salem Green (now owned by Salem Five) to Salem Five’s main building.

This will be the longest ramp of its kind in Salem and the first to pass over a roadway.  Visitors to Boston’s Back Bay may recall the walkway that connects the Prudential to Copley Place over Huntington Ave.  That walkway is not a favorite of many architectural critics.  Unfortunately, the siting of the garage doesn’t leave many options.

There will be a car entrance next to the current pedestrian entrance on Bridge St.  I’m not certain how well that’s going to work out, particularly for courthouse-bound walkers.

I’m particularly concerned about access to the bus terminal portion, since I use that mode very frequently.  This is Option 1:

The bus platform is quite a long ways from the street.  In general I’d like not to have to walk so far to the bus.  On those days that I’ve taken the train in to Boston, I’ve stood on the platform at the very end of the station and wondered out loud if it would be quicker to walk to the Carlton School (visible from the platform!!) to get the train.

I like Option 2A just a bit better:

The bus bays appear a little closer to Bridge St.  Keep in mind, though, that only five of the bays are “live” and take passengers;  the other two are layover berths.

The differences in the other options pertain to where the taxi stand and the kiss-and-ride areas are located;  I have no opinion on those.

On the train platform itself, three options have been presented.  Currently, it is a low-level platform with a mini-high platform at the very end of the track (within sight of Carlton School!)  That is one option.  Another option would be to make the entire platform high-level (as at Newburyport and Central Square) but there is a curve in the track that makes it difficult to get ADA compliance.  The last and preferred option is to make the northern half of the platform high-level and the southern half near Bridge St. low-level as it is now.

There are more considerations that will probably be addressed at the meeting.  Another quote from the executive summary:

The design team will provide precedents for proposed parking facility to further the
development of exterior treatments, planning, operational efficiencies, and architectural
design. Please see Review Draft Memorandum dated 16 August 2009 attached in
Appendix 10.6 for further design discussion from the City of Salem. Planning items to be
further reviewed and developed include:
Security for underside of bridge entering second level of proposed parking facility
Pedestrian access from Federal Street and North Salem neighborhoods
Lobby area for waiting with amenities such as coffee and newspaper vendors
Covered bus loading area
Operational efficiencies to be resolved include:
Pedestrian circulation within garage
Decision for entry/exit to be attended or automated
Determining appropriate number of entry and exit lanes
Improve efficiency in parking layout
On site vehicular, bus, and “kiss and ride” circulation

The City (or at least the mayor) wants an enclosed, heated waiting area.  I’d suggest security for the ramp itself be considered, particularly if it is enclosed.

Construction would be completed in December 2011, two years from now, assuming it takes eight to ten months to complete the environmental permitting. 

This also very much assumes the City and state can go forward without any delays.  

We’ll see this Tuesday.

Salem’s Last Road is 1 Year Old!

I’ve been too busy to recognize a recent anniversary:  The Bypass Road is one year old!  I’ve written about the road, and photographed it too. 

John Keenan considers it a success:

"I think overall the bypass road has been a great success in terms of diluting the traffic on Bridge Street," said state Rep. John Keenan. "There are still issues with noise and motorcycles — I can hear them from my backyard as well. But overall, I think it's been a big success."

But Rob Liani, owner of the Coffee Time Bake Shop is less sure:

Business has remained about the same, but Liani is particularly bothered by what he considers poor signage on the Salem-Beverly bridge that fails to direct drivers to Bridge Street. One of the big green signs simply tells motorists that a left turn will take them to "Swampscott 1A" without mentioning Bridge Street, Salem Willows or Pickering Wharf.

The state has been obstinate on this point.

There haven’t been as many accidents as I’ve feared.  A reckless motorcyclist crashed running away from the cops.  I worried about kids at the Jefferson complex being hit;  no pedestrian accidents have happened that I know of.

At the end of last year, when the road had been open for several months, I noted that it split the Bridge St. neighborhood in three parts.  That hasn’t changed.  The triangular greenspace at St. Peter St. now is the focal point of three distinct neighborhoods.  (Little wonder that I don’t want to see it be a parking lot.)

The one thing we haven’t gotten yet is new talking signals for people with disabilities at St. Peter St. (or, indeed, on all of Bridge St.)

The bell-sounding audible signal at St. Peter, adjusted for being too loud at the Jefferson, is now all but inaudible.  The bell signal at Washington & Bridge is also inaudible;  I can’t remember the last time I really heard it, and I use that intersection several times a week.

The Commission on Disabilities has been waiting for the MAAB and MassHighway to finish feuding over accessibility on the bikeway/walkway before asking the city engineer to purchase and install a new pedestrian signal. 

I wish we hadn’t waited on that.  Originally, our thought was that we wanted this dispute handled by the state,  To protect the city from liability, we advised the city not to take ownership of the road until it was settled.

The city, apparently, has already taken over responsibility for the roadway, and the matter between MAAB and MassHighway is still unresolved.  (Still very much unknown is how the state’s proposed massive reorganization of transportation departments will affect this and the Bridge St. project.)

And we still don’t have our talking pedestrian signals downtown, at a place where we really need them, with the new courthouse going up and Salem Depot with its heavy pedestrian traffic.

The road is still not named:

Mayor Kim Driscoll proposed officially naming it the "North River Greenway" last year, but city councilors opted instead to hold a citywide naming contest.

[…]

The naming contest seems to be on hold for now. The council doesn't have the matter scheduled for any of its upcoming meetings.

The council should just hand it over to the Mayor to name.  They can’t do it.  They can’t decide anything.  Perhaps it can be the “Sosnowski Byway” or the “Nathaniel Hawthorne Highway for Historic Property Owners”.

Downtown Salem Parking Insanity

The Salem News is reporting on something I have known ever since I’ve lived downtown:  Parking Bleeps.

The owner of Marketplace Quilts on Front St. has complained:

Clark blamed the city for allowing a restaurant that big to open without planning for parking. In a letter, she said her nighttime business has declined "because parking is nowhere to be found."

While sympathetic, city officials disagree. Halloween aside, they contend there is plenty of parking within a short walking distance of stores and restaurants.

The two city garages have not filled up once this whole tourist season, according to Parking Director Jim Hacker.

"We are busy, but we have not had an overflow crowd," he said last week.

In my building, we have our own frustrations about parking.  In a meeting with several of my neighbors to discuss building renovations, there were several wacky ideas proposed for parking.

One idea was to build a deck, or two, above the existing parking lot.  The other was to pave over the small triangular park that was formed when Bridge St. was realigned to the new bypass road.

Unfortunately, the deck idea isn’t the most practical:  There’s too little space on the site to accommodate the ramps to each level, which take up space below as well as above.

And paving the small park…not so much.  The Jail developers would have a fit.  That park is our compensation for tolerating the new road.  It’s a necessary—and welcome—buffer, particularly for  Howard St. residents. 

The article goes on:

Last fall, the Urban Land Institute, a research and educational group, came to Salem to consider the long-discussed prospect of building a parking garage on the Church Street lot behind District Court to handle future growth.

It rejected the idea.

"Residential development of the site would better promote the vibrant, sustainable growth of downtown Salem," the Institute concluded.

It also pointed to the paradox of downtown Salem: "Though the city appears to have adequate parking supply, parking in downtown is a real issue."

At the time, I had understood that the group did not want to have a 2nd parking structure so close to the existing Museum Place garage. 

I’m not so sure about residential development.

People living downtown, particularly newer residents, have expectations that are very difficult to fulfill here.

A few months ago, our executive director, Carol MacGown, came to a tenant’s meeting.  For the better part of two hours, the only subject on the agenda was parking.

My neighbors were screaming at her!

Ms. MacGown has very little control over the overall situation downtown;  she inherited a building that was not designed to have all its residents parking at once. 

Over at Derby Lofts, people there are asking the city to pay for their parking at South Harbor Garage.

Meanwhile, whenever people like myself advocate  public transit, the response is always “I’m not subsidizing your transit!  Get a car! Let the Free Market work!”

But the city is subsidizing parking, to an extent that’s virtually unrealized by most Salemmites.  Public transit may not come for free but neither do roads and parking spaces! 

If we promise every downtown resident two parking spaces, we are screwed.  Salem can’t do it.  We can’t.

We need every bit of our roads and parking spaces for the many that pass through via 1A and 114, and for those who deliver, shop and visit here.

I shouldn’t hold out hope for this belief, but if new downtown residents are to have a good life in Salem, they have to live without a car.  Or at most one car.  Or a bike, or a moped or a scooter (why I don’t see more of those around is beyond me.) 

They can’t have the suburban life here.  They’re better off screaming at the MBTA, than at Mayor Driscoll or our own MacGown. 

Seniors have changed from my mom’s generation, the one that was more used to trolleys, streetcars, or even horses.  The baby boomers grew up around cars and they’re determined to head for their sunset with their cars.

They just can’t do it in downtown Salem.

Pedestrians and the new Senior Center

As reported a while ago by both the Salem News and the Gazette, the City Council has approved the Boston & Bridge St. location for the new senior center.

It’s a familiar place:  I lived in this neighborhood, on nearby Varney St, for 9 years from 1973 to 1982, and spent most of that time walking, to the old Crosby’s on Essex St., to downtown Salem, downtown Peabody or to the North Shore Shopping Center via the old Michaud bus (now the 465). 

I knew this neighborhood well.  Except for the empty lot of the former Sylvania, and the Walgreens that replaced Ideal Finishing, the intersection in the photo hasn’t changed a bit.

And that’s the real problem in the neighborhood.

Bridge St., and the one-way Proctor St. directly opposite it, effectively splits Boston St. in two.  There are no pedestrian signals, and only faded crosswalks between the side of Boston St. east of Bridge, and the west end of Boston St. past Dunkin Donuts.

There are only two places in the area to cross Boston St. itself:  Pope St., which you can just see in the photo above at the triple-decker (the old Witches’ Brew), and at Proctor & Grove St.:

Except for having modern (1990’s) pedestrian signals, this too is as it was when I lived here.

There is bus service still:

And a bus stop at the future senior center:

Some seniors think there’s nothing there for them in this neighborhood and it’s dangerous, so why should the center be here?

But, the AOH is here, familiar to many seniors:

And the Moose on Grove St., deep in the heart of Blubber Hollow:

I do know why Boston St. has been the way it is for years:

The Bypass Road.

The road was originally going to proceed parallel to Bridge St. past the B&M yard (now Salem Depot) and go down Harmony Grove Road.

My dear friend Leo Jodoin put his hopes on that, as did many in the neighborhood, including the Gallows Hill Neighborhood Association.

As long as the bypass road was to go down that way, the thinking went at the time, all the traffic will go off Boston St. (as it has gone off Bridge St. with the new road.)  As if by magic, pedestrian traffic never has to be considered!  (Back in the day, the state highway department never thought of pedestrians, either.)

Except for new pedestrian signals at Grove & Pope Sts., the signals at Boston and Bridge St. are virtually unchanged from the late-seventies, the last time signals were put in at that intersection.

If the bypass road is going in, why bother improving the intersection?

But of course it didn’t go in.  Leo intones on his show at every opportunity, “It’s NOT a bypass road!”

But that won’t change things.

He can say that on his show ad infinitum.  It’s his show.

I can’t.  Salem can’t.  Pining over the bypass road will not help the pedestrians on Boston St.  When the senior center comes in, this area will have to change.  It would have had to change anyway;  Sylvania is gone and Flynntan has long been a ruin. 

This is the last major intersection in Salem that’s unimproved.  That there haven’t been plans to redesign it is nothing short of negligence.

I wish Leo would want it changed;  it’s his neighborhood.  But there’s still hope.

A few months ago, I talked with Jerry Ryan about the pedestrian problems on Highland Ave.  He was very willing and able to get involved with the redesign that MassHighway is doing on that street.

Jerry, I know you lost the debate on the senior center.  I know I disagreed with you on that.  And I know I’m not your constituent.  But I know you read my blog.

I will ask you to please do what you can to see that Boston St. is improved for traffic and pedestrian access.  When the senior center and associated development comes in, there will be more pedestrian traffic. 

Help us get talking pedestrian signals like there are on North St.

Last of all, don’t take Boston St. for granted.  Toward the end of my stay in that neighborhood, I saw it go downhill when the factories closed and Flynntan burned.  Over the years we’ve taken that for granted.  The neighborhood looks terrible, but that’s the way it always looks, the way it always is, so don’t change it, goes the feeling.

Don’t do that.

Boston St. needs rebuilding.  It needs restitching at Boston and Bridge.  Your neighborhood, the city and I are counting on it.

Update:  The Salem News praises Bridge St. redevelopment but doesn’t mention Boston St.

Salem’s Last Road: How Salem Changed with the Road

Even after only four months, it is very apparent that Salem’s Last Road has changed traffic patterns in Salem.  It has also changed neighborhoods.

The road, centered on the new triangular parkland at St. Peter’s St., has divided the Bridge St. area into three distinct neighborhoods.

The first neighborhood is my own, the section of St. Peter’s St. and Bridge going southeast towards Federal and Church Sts.  It includes Ash St., the steep street between my building and the Unitarian church, and extends out to Washington St.

This has changed the least out of the three.  It’s more or less the same neighborhood I found when I moved into my current apartment in 1995.  Parker Brothers was demolished around the same time I moved in, and the Jail was long closed.

I have the same traffic noise I always have, and the train noise to let me know when I oversleep and miss the 7:05 to Boston.  Bridge St. is no longer the intimate and very congested street it was when I came, but is a full 4-1/2 lane highway.  I have mixed feelings about that. 

The sidewalk along Bridge St. was very dangerous to traverse in 1995, with the steep drop and broken fence at the old Harley-Davidson dealership at 234 Bridge St.  It is much safer now, even if it lacks character.  Despite what I first feared when the road opened, I have no trouble getting to Salem Depot on time for my bus or train with a crosswalk just steps from the door.

The second neighborhood created by the bypass road is really two neighborhoods.  The first one goes from St. Peter St. northeast, away from downtown, out to Winter St. where Route 1A curves south from Bridge St. to Salem Common and Hawthorne Boulevard. 

This area between 1A and 107 is very quiet with the new roadway.  Standing at the Howard St. Cemetery above the Salem Jail, you would hardly know there is a busy road.  The triangular park is a very effective buffer against road noise.  If the Jail is developed, its residents will find it a nice refuge virtually in downtown.

The second part of this neighborhood extends from Winter St. northeastwards to the bridge.  This hasn’t changed a lot, but it has subtly changed as most of the heavy truck traffic is now off Bridge St.  This is for the better.

Of course, all of the neighborhoods I’ve talked about are connected by a very nice bikepath which has gotten rave reviews by most who have walked it, myself included.

The third and last neighborhood, unfortunately, is not really a neighborhood at all.  It is the saddest example of development anywhere in the city.

It is the Jefferson, stretching north from Salem Depot, along the old Parker Brothers property out to Howard St. on the southbound lane of Bridge St.  It is nine apartment buildings cut neatly in half by the bypass road.  For all intents and purposes, the Jefferson is almost completely isolated from the rest of the city by Bridge St. and the bypass road, especially buildings 5 through 9 on the Howard St. side which make a tight triangle isolated from every other neighboring street.

The fault is entirely on former mayor Stan Usovicz’s shoulders.

As much as I opposed the routing of the road, I can forgive that and I can probably even accept it now. 

But the process that led to a fly-by-night developer erecting cheap and probably dangerous buildings was one of the worst things to happen to Salem since the old Depot was demolished.

There were many many possibilities for development, even with the routing of the road that was selected.  It was rumored a hotel chain was interested—the bypass road would have been a boon for them!  There was talk about building the courthouse complex there.  Imagine no over-sensitive neighbors to complain (I certainly wouldn’t have!)  Imagine reusing part of the Parker Brothers complex for offices or even an inn!

But no, Stan did what was cheapest and quickest.  People in the Jefferson are cursing;  I have already had comments in my blog about the noise that Jefferson dwellers experience from the road.  Someday, some child trying to get to his friend’s house across the road will be killed.  One hopes there won’t be a fire as there was at the complex in Peabody.

That poor decision to develop is responsible for all the ills that the road has caused in Salem.   The road could have been better, but it hasn’t turned out to be the nightmare I feared it would be.  The Jefferson, on the other hand, is different.

Stan Usovicz needs to admit to his culpability.  If more retired officials thought about what their decisions meant to Salem, 10, 20 years down the road or longer, they might have made better decisions.  Perhaps we would demand—and have—better officials.

Who knows, the Old Salem Depot and Leslie’s Retreat Bridge might be still with us.  And we might have had a great development on Bridge St. making money for the city.

Instead of crapbox apartments hemmed in by a highway.

Salem’s Last Road: Its Progress, Twenty Weeks Later (Part 2)

Last post, I mentioned the problem MassHighway made for itself with the bikepath on the bypass road.  Now my other peeve:  Audible pedestrian signals. 

The Commission met with Sue Cranney almost three years ago, and she was receptive to installing the newer Polara talking signals already at other locations in Salem.

MassHighway installed the Polara signals at North St., but not at St. Peter St. as we requested.   Technically, the bell signal that’s there is in compliance, so there’s nothing we can do.

But I and the Commission are still very disappointed.  When we meet with someone and convince them to provide access for people with disabilities, and show them how they can provide access, we don’t expect to have to get every little concession in writing.  We can’t lawyer up on everything.   (Though Jack has written documentation and minutes on all of this.)

We had Ms. Cranney’s word and we gave her the benefit of the doubt.  These talking signals would have been much better for pedestrians and neighbors than bells and buzzers are now. ( Bob Moran wondered if the speakers for the Polara signals are up above the street.  They are not.  They are in the same housing that the pedestrian button is, at street level where pedestrians can hear them.  And they adjust for ambient noise so they are not loud at night.)

In addition, the Polara signal buttons don’t freeze in cold weather, unlike older signals, and I am told, they are cheaper to maintain.

They are more expensive than other signals and no doubt a beancounter at MassHighway was behind this;  in today’s economy, one cannot expect a lot of sympathy to our desires.

However, we could still get our signal.  The Commission is working with Dave Knowlton, our city engineer, and he is receptive to installing the Polara signal.  But the project, pending the MAAB hearing, is still controlled by the state;  the city hasn’t taken over the road and bikepath yet.

If I and the Commission only get this done in 2009, it will be a good thing.

Next installment of Salem’s Last Road:  How Salem changed with the road.

Salem’s Last Road: Its Progress, Twenty Weeks Later

The Salem News recently ran an article on the bypass road, “Life After The Bypass Road, Jury’s Still Out”.  Rather than summarize that article, which doesn’t have any insights I didn’t know already, this post and the next few, have  my observations on the road so far and its impact on Salem over twenty weeks after it opened.

There are two problems with the bypass road that I and the Commission on Disabilities are working on.  The first problem involves the bike path.

Last June, MassHighway notified the Commission about a problem with the bike path.   The entrance to Lemon St. at the path was too steep for wheelchairs and fixing this would have been all but impossible.  The Commission (Jack, Charlie and myself) met with MassHighway and agreed to kick the problem over to the MAAB (Massachusetts Architectural Access Board).

Only problem was, MAAB requested that they stop construction on the bikepath while they reviewed MassHighway’s variance request.  This was in late July.

The road and bikepath opened and everyone was happy. 

Except the MAAB.  As Jack related to me, to the MAAB, MassHighway was behaving like a homeowner who did an addition to his house without pulling a permit.   And then going to the building inspector to say, “CAN HAS OCCUPANCY PERMIT PLEEZ?  KTHX BYE!”

The MAAB wasn’t going to let that go with a handshake and a smile;  they requested MassHighway go to Boston in person to request their variance.  (Normally, this isn’t necessary if the petitioner has collected all the information for the MAAB to make a determination.)

So, two state agencies fight it out.  Great.  This doesn’t seem like a big deal but it is disappointing.  The Commission really doesn’t live to fight;  we like when projects go smoothly without drama.  If  MassHighway had only asked our advice earlier, say in April when we could see the site, this would not have happened.

As a result, the Commission has urged the city to not accept or take control of the bikepath until the MAAB has had its hearing with MassHighway and the issue is settled.  That ripples into the next problem, the audible pedestrian signals, and my next post.

Mayor, Commuters Support New Salem Depot

The Salem News follows up on yesterday’s petition drive at Salem Depot.  Mayor Driscoll expands on one detail of the project I found interesting:

The mayor has formed a committee to explore a possible public-private partnership and to try to push Salem to the head of the long line of communities hoping for more train parking.

Plans for a new station have changed slightly, the mayor said late yesterday. Officials are now looking at a smaller building that would cost less to build but still provide close to the 1,000 spaces Salem officials want. [emphasis added]  It would be built on a site that would not include city property, the mayor said.

I don’t much care about the specific number of parking spaces, indeed I don’t drive at all so I would not care, except for the great need that the courthouse already poses (for the past 20 years, not just the new facility.)

But I want to see a sheltered platform.  And food service and convenience stores as you find at North Station and Government Center.  Handicapped access that isn’t a rotting ramp.  And the end of those f---ing stairs! 

I want our train station something that’s done right, a rare government project that makes Salem better than it was before it.  A facility that commuters and visitors to our city can be proud of.

We may have budget concerns but we must not compromise on that idea.  We’ve done that too often in the past.

From the comments in the Salem News, it’s apparent that in our cynical state, we can’t or don’t dare to even see that little distance ahead.  To borrow from Deval Patrick, “Together We Can’t.”

Salem Depot Gets Signatures

Salem Depot, long written and complained about in this blog, continues to get attention.  The Salem Partnership had petitioners out to get signatures in support of a new garage at Salem Depot.

Once again, the Salem News comes out to support the project:

If you read this while waiting for the train in Salem Monday morning, you likely encountered the mayor or others bearing petitions seeking support for a new waiting area and garage.

If you read this while waiting for the train, you were also likely freezing. With the wind whipping off the North River, Rep. John Keenan describes the train platform at the Salem depot as "probably the coldest place in North America."

That's a slight exaggeration, of course. But there's no question commuters deserve a more comfortable place in which to wait the arrival of the MBTA's commuter trains than the concrete slab and Plexiglas shelters which serve that purpose now.

Mayor Kim Driscoll, says it's either now or a long time from now for construction of a new parking facility and waiting area at the train station.

We’ve had the current Salem Depot for 21 years.  Early on, there was a very obvious parking shortage.  A few years after, the stairs started coming apart.  I’ve said before, I hate them.

I fully expect, if not for the courthouse project—which has already put demand on parking downtown—that we could wait another 20 years, if ever, for a new station.

I wonder if the NIMBYs will still be here at that time?

The lot’s almost full and it was just 7:30.

More on Audible Pedestrian Signals

There are more verbal pedestrian signals in Salem.  These new signals are on North St.

Now, why again aren't these downtown at the train station, or at St. Peter St.?

If MassHighway thinks these signals are so precious and too expensive to put downtown at the bypass road, then why are they here?

St. Peter’s St.

Robert Moran writes another column on my neighborhood .  He has a comment on the small (unnamed) park outside my building:

In front of the old jail, on the corner, a park was born this month. With wild flowers, shade trees and a couple of benches, it is already a stroll-through for Salemites. It provides excellent vantage to enjoy pigeon games and watch Bridge Street traffic integrate with the new bypass.

To prevent lingering, road builders installed a god-awful pedestrian crossing bell at St. Peter and Bridge. If annoyed park sitters find the bell irritating, they might pity the tormented residents of Morency Manor and Jefferson Apartments. A stone’s throw from their windows, builders installed additional (deci) bells.

It is indeed annoying and frustrating but not deliberate.  I have a long history with that particular pedestrian signal.

Over two years ago, I and the Salem Commission on Disabilities (myself, Jack Harris, Charlie Reardon, Andy LaPointe and the mayor’s chief of staff Jason Silva) met with the bypass road’s project director, Sue Cranney of MassHighway.

We wanted “talking” pedestrian signals, made by Polara Engineering, at St. Peter’s St.  We had wanted these also at Bridge and Washington St. at the train station, but we were told (in 2006) that the signals were already ordered, so we focused our attention on St. Peter’s St., which would not be completed until the end of the project two years later.

Ms. Cranney agreed to our request and told us the extra cost upfront would not be an issue to her budget.  We had every reason to believe that

Fast forward to now.  As soon as I saw the ringing signal—which was not what we asked for—my chairman, Jack, contacted Ms. Cranney.  She told him the signal was in compliance.  This is technically correct.

But the Polara signal has already been used in MassHighway projects in Salem!  You can find these talking signals at Marlborough Rd., Vinnin Square, and most notably at Salem State College’s Central Campus opposite Jefferson Ave.

I have been left to wonder why MassHighway would use the Polara signals in some locations but not others.  None of the locations of these signals are anywhere near hospitals or other “places for the disabled” (which is usually how accommodations take place when someone feels sorry for the disabled).   Marlborough Rd. is a residential area even more so than St. Peter’s St., Vinnin Sq. is a commercial area with few pedestrians.  The Polara signal at Jefferson and Loring services busy Salem State College, but the area was merely a residential DMZ between North and South Campus (Central Campus did not yet exist) when the signal was installed.

MassHighway recently rebuilt the busy Coolidge Corner intersection in Brookline with Polara signals.  Here’s what they look and sound like:

These signals adjust their volume to overcome ambient noise and to be quiet at night.  They wouldn’t disturb people on my corner.

More importantly, they are more vandal-proof than other pedestrian controls and are cheaper to maintain.

MassHighway is trading off their cheap acquisition price for the extra expense that the city will have, once the project is turned over to them.

It is an understatement that I am disappointed in Ms. Cranney.

Many might wonder, why do we need these signals in Salem?  We’re not Brookline.   

Or are we?

Coolidge Corner is a busy place for pedestrians going to and from businesses and the trolley down the middle of Beacon.

Washington St. and Bridge St. is busy with pedestrians.  They go from place to place at the intersection.  They also go to the train station.  Lots of people do.

Since the city and the state have both decided to move forward with the courthouse project, there is and will be much pedestrian traffic, not only at Washington and Bridge but also at North and Federal.

Since the city wants to keep pedestrians moving through downtown Salem, I suggest that Kim Driscoll might make some calls to MassHighway before the project is transferred over. 

Oh, and Robert, people live in the neighborhoods you write about.  Just saying.

Bypass Road Dragway

 

As many of us predicted, the bypass road’s straight track is very attractive to racers.  A commenter on one of my bypass road posts complained about motorcycle races.  The Salem News was finally made to notice it:

SALEM — Since it opened outside her home last month, Carol Brunaccini says the bypass road has become a racetrack — and she means that literally.

"One weekend, we had a group of 20-something kids hanging out at the Carlton School," Brunaccini said. "I assume they were drinking because they had containers with them."

They were standing near the school parking lot cheering on about five motorcyclists who were drag racing up, then down the bypass road, Brunaccini said.

 

More quotes from a cop:

Even before the one-mile, $15 million straightaway to downtown Salem opened last month, police knew the road might tempt lead-footed drivers.

It's a speed demon's dream — flat, wide and straight.

"It presents an attractive opportunity for people to see how fast you can go," said Salem police Capt. Brian Gilligan.

Brunaccini said she's seen motorcycles doing wheelies on the straightaway.

One night while working a detail on foot near Bridge Street, Gilligan saw a motorcycle fly over the Salem-Beverly bridge and onto the bypass road.

"I'd characterize him as somewhere in the 80 to 90 to 95 mph range," Gilligan said. "You were crossing your fingers hoping the kid would make it."

I wanted to see that!

I’d love to be on the road with my camera just to see one of these guys sail over the March St. bridge.  Perhaps I can see someone attempt a Darwin Award!

Going south, the only things that would stop you are the side of the Jefferson complex and the Salem Depot platform, which is in a dip relative to the bypass road, so it’s easy to hop the fence to the tracks.  (I see people on foot hop the fence by the Jefferson all the time.)  

That’s one way to meet the 1 AM train to Rockport!

Going north, you can end up on top of Stromberg’s!

If I were to see any of these things with my camera, you’d see it on TV and YouTube as fast as I could get it there!

Brunaccini has a solution:

One partial solution, she said, is forcing commercial traffic, including trucks, onto Bridge Street, which she says has seen a dramatic drop in traffic since the bypass road opened.

 

Um, no.  That would not be such a good idea.   The very reason traffic is light on Bridge St. is precisely that the new road is open. 

Further south on Howard St., traffic heading for Bridge St. has to take a sharp right at the light.  The routing and intersection was designed to divert most traffic to the bypass.

If I lived on Howard St., I’d much rather see truck traffic go straight down the bypass than turning virtually in front of my house.  I can foresee a jackknifed trailer piled up on Bridge St. at Howard if this restriction were put in place.

I was and am dead set against the new road.  However, it is built and it is here.  It makes no sense to block it to trucks, especially as most truckers will not blow through the road at 100 MPH and they have federal regulations that your drunk maniac motorist doesn’t have to cope with.

Article:  Bedlam on the bypass - SalemNews.com, Salem, MA

Salem’s Last Road: Moving on

I’ve gotten a flurry of comments on the bypass road, all of them critical of the road and its impact.  I don’t usually respond to comments in the comments, figuring it’s a place for the readers  (and also that it’s hard to have a good dialogue in the comments, the way most blogs are set up.)

But one person (anonymous) assured me I had “no idea” of the traffic noise of the new bypass road at their residence.

Try me.

I took this video at the corner of St. Peter and Bridge, outside my apartment.  You can see it in the image that starts this post;  it is the pinkish-red building in the foreground.

I definitely hear traffic.  I hear trains.   I hear the “jake brakes” of large trucks as they go up and down the incline over the train tunnel.

I’ve said before I don’t like having a five lane road between me and the train station.  The Howard St. side of the Jefferson apartment complex is a cruel joke, locked in by roads on three sides.   The $16 million spent on the road looms large considering that the new train station will cost $30 million which could have paid for completely by the state, instead of having to seek private investment.

There’s a reason I called it Salem’s Last Road, because the cost (financial, municipal and emotional) of any more new roadways is far beyond any benefit we can get from them now. 

The bypass road is Salem’s counterpart to Boston’s Inner Belt Project, the proposed Rt. 695 spur off 95 that would have taken 7,000 homes and irreparably changed huge parts of Boston and Cambridge.

The difference is that the Inner Belt was stopped.  It turned out to be the beginning of the end for highways in Boston (heralding the Big Dig’s last hurrah.)

The Bypass Road wasn’t.

We can argue over which Bypass Road resident is most deserving of pity. 

That won’t change what happened.

Remember, too, that the northern side of Bridge St. was never “waterfront property”.  The Boston and Maine railroad property was there even before current residents of Bridge St. were born.

It was a transportation corridor to begin with.  No surprise that the state wanted to do something more with that right-of-way, and in those days that meant car traffic.

All of those years that politicians lobbied for new roads to solve our problems have come back to bite us.  I hope the next time I advocate for better pedestrian access and public transportation, that the bypass road critics will take note.

In the meantime, don’t blame me.  I only documented the project.  It’s not like the News or the Gazette would have spent time on letting citizens know what was being paid for in their name.  Talk to some of the dear old cronies out there sitting on their butts, the old Representative or Councilor or Mayor Whoosis’ who let this happen.

I’m not interested in tallying bypass road pity points.  I’m moving on.

P.S.  I’ve forwarded the comment about the motorcycle races to Mike Sosnowski.

Salem’s Last Road: John Keenan

John Keenan speaks at the Bypass Road’s opening ceremonies