Recent comments in /f/massachusetts

Maronita2020 t1_j2venb9 wrote

Reply to comment by great_blue_hill in Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

Why post a link that can't be read without spending money. Why shouldn't the OP just give a synopsis of what it says and post the link as the source. People then can give them their opinion. Otherwise why wouldn't the online magazine/newspaper subscription not just have someone posts links and asking for peoples opinions as a way to bring income in.

−1

itsgreater9000 t1_j2v3xvr wrote

Reply to comment by UncleCustard in Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

while I understand the situation, I wouldn't apply it to every school district equally. But that, to me, sounds like a reasonable argument for delaying the start time and ending the day a bit later. I am mostly thinking of schools like Hampshire Regional, which have 5 towns that flow into one school and they are definitely far apart. I think there might be a compromise that could be had about minimizing bus travel time for school kids (or better yet, get some friggin train system out there that might be a good way to help speed up the transit! think about it: public train systems for bringing kids to school :D). That might be redirecting towns to larger/closer places (e.g. instead of Southampton kids being brought to Hampshire Regional in Westhampton, send them to Westfield or Northampton, whichever is closer, and set up the regional high school in Chesterfield). Although the reality is that when everyone is so spaced out, the minimum travel distance is going to hurt somebody somewhere. But the current school systems are mostly local towns just saying "hey, let's merge together!" without real thought about what the best regional merges would be. Just what local towns feel like at some point in time.

That being said, eastern mass has some of this too (sadly). The METCO program requires most of the kids being taken from Boston to the outer suburbs to get a 5:30am start, which was terrible for those kids. I honestly felt bad because they were definitely trying to stay awake, but just couldn't some days.

2

welshTerrier2 t1_j2v3o8u wrote

Reply to UPDATE: Gov. Baker signs new road safety bill into law by TurnsOutImAScientist

I'm all for the new 4-foot safe passing buffer but the issue goes way beyond whether the police will enforce the 4-foot buffer law or not.

Consider the following:

Let's start with a road that has curbs on both sides and a double-yellow line down the center. Let's say that the double-yellow line takes up one foot of the road's surface. And let's have a bike rider riding some distance from the curb.

Some state DOTs and various cycling publications suggest that bike riders position themselves about 3 feet from the curb. Why is this? The argument is that the edge of the road is frequently where drainage grates are placed and also where debris collects. Also, bike riders need to have at least some space to move right if a car or truck is passing them too closely. Also, hitting a pedal on the curb when riding too close to the curb would be catastrophic.

So, there are some pretty good arguments for riding 3 feet from the curb. But let's be "good" cyclists and compromise a little. Let's say we ride 18 inches from the curb. Less than that is clearly dangerous.

Now, if our tires are 18 inches from the curb, how far from the curb would the closest-to-traffic part of our bike be? If you're riding a straight-handlebars bike (as opposed to drop bars), a typical total width is about 36 inches such that 1/2 of that width extends to the traffic-side of your tires. Thus, if you're tires are 18 inches (and they could be more) from the curb, the end of your traffic-side handlebar would be 3 feet from the curb.

Still with me?

Then add the 4-foot safe-passing buffer. That means that a passing car should be a minimum of 7 feet from the curb if the bike rider is only 18 inches from the curb.

Here's where the issue gets complicated for local cities and towns.

Large sedans (e.g. SUVs) and pickup trucks can be close to 7 feet wide. Larger commercial trucks and emergency vehicles can be much wider than that. Let's just use a width of 7 feet.

How wide would a road with a double-yellow line have to be, in total, to allow a vehicle to pass a bike rider without riding on or over the double-yellow line? This is the real issue here. Some some towns might need to implement laws to prohibit cars and trucks from passing a bike rider AT ANY DISTANCE on some roads because some roads are too narrow.

Why is this?

If we add all the stuff we have to fit on half the road, i.e., the rider's distance from the curb (1.5 feet), one-half the handlebars (1.5 feet), a 4-foot safety buffer, and a 7-foot car or pickup truck, we need a one-direction total of 14 feet. If the bike rider is more than 1.5 feet from the curb, we need even more than 14 feet. Now, double that because the road has one lane in each direction requiring a 28-foot width. And, finally, add one foot for the double yellow line area.

The bottom line is that roads with a double yellow line need to be a minimum of 29 feet wide. In my town, which is likely typical of many towns in Massachusetts, very few of our roads are this wide. The larger roads, i.e., those with a double yellow line down the center, are right around 29 and 30 feet wide.

The town could switch from a double yellow to a single yellow but this is not necessarily a safe thing to do. They could, as some have suggested they're likely to do, just choose to not enforce the law. Or, at least on some roads, they could make it illegal to pass a bike rider at all.

This new 4-foot buffer law is going to unleash some very interesting discussions. As the old saying goes, that which hits the fan, and it's about to, is not often evenly distributed. It looks like we're going to be in for a wild ride.

2

thomastodon01027 t1_j2utr02 wrote

Reply to Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

I have to say I’m a little surprised to see a few comments on here getting upvoted. As a little perspective, I am a lifelong resident of Western MA, and I’ve spent my adult life working in public policy, including 6 years in elected office. Nobody out here is suggesting that the people of rural MA be given more votes in the legislature, or anything like that. But the truth is that there are a lot of people in key decision-making positions who have huge blind spots when it comes to some of the communities outside of 495.

This really isn’t some zero sum game where anything that comes to the rural parts of MA has to come at the expense of Metro Boston. It’s just a matter of making sure that people who make public policy understand the unique needs of all Massachusetts’ communities. And right now, I can tell you, a lot of people straight up don’t. They don’t understand how delivering services to vulnerable people is different when you have zero public transit. They don’t understand the first thing about agricultural economies. They don’t understand the ways that having an aging, declining population leads to a different kind of housing crisis than what they have out East.

If your opinion is basically “fuck those dumb hicks”, then the status quo is great. But there are a lot of people who are actually tasked with providing government services to all of the Commonwealth’s citizens, and in a lot of cases, they would be doing a better job providing those services to to rural communities if there were people from rural communities at the table voicing their needs.

And to folks saying that the legislative delegation from those communities is enough, to me, that just suggests that you don’t pay attention to state house politics. The MA state house is one of the most top-heavy, least transparent legislative institutions in the country. It is not a place where honest public servants go to discuss the needs of their constituents. And unless your rep and senator are part of the leadership, they don’t have a tremendous amount of contact with the decision makers in the executive branch, which is what this editorial is actually about.

I ended up at a gathering of local elected officials from Western MA last year. Some representatives from the state were there, and they discussed a bunch of government initiatives to help with technology, infrastructure, etc. As the officials asked questions, it became clear that in nearly every case, their communities either weren’t eligible for the funds, or they didn’t have the administrative resources to even apply. These folks from the state drove 2-3 hours to present on this stuff, which they presumably would not have done if they understood this. But I seriously doubt a single thing has changed since then.

4

MiloMinderbinder-22 t1_j2upknb wrote

Reply to comment by ExternalRespond1870 in Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

Dafuq you talking about? Since when is Massachusetts known for its agricultural output? New England in general has poor soil.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Massachusetts/cp99025.pdf

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844

Edit: I'm getting a lot of downvotes about a state that is ranked #47 out of 50 in agricultural output (ahead of only New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Alaska) and whose biggest crops include greenhouse and nursery commodities (mmm, good eatin'). This sub is weird.

3

movdqa t1_j2up1gt wrote

Reply to comment by TurnsOutImAScientist in UPDATE: Gov. Baker signs new road safety bill into law by TurnsOutImAScientist

>level 1TheEmpressIsIn · 6 hr. agoalways good to see attention brought to the issue, but why pass more laws when the once we currently have are not enforced? speeding, tailgating, stop sign/red light running are rampant in my area. i see it every time i drive, but i rarely see anyone stopped.

It's like Move Over for pedestrians and cyclists. We should all be doing this already without having to have a law; but I guess a lot of people don't think about spacing.

2