November 6, 2022

The city council continued its string of concise meetings on Tuesday night. I thought the big news from this meeting came almost inadvertently, during the discussion of a response to an October 18 motion by Councilor Dan Rourke regarding a pedestrian crossing at the Rourke Bridge and VFW Highway. This was a “create a crosswalk” motion since there is not and never has been a crosswalk at the intersection which is astounding but not surprising.

Almost all of the attention given to the Rourke Bridge has been from the perspective of motor vehicle operators. Granted, traffic across the bridge can be terrible and the ricketiness of the structure makes driving across seem a risky undertaking, but the situation is even worse for pedestrians and bicyclists.

On the upstream side of the bridge there is a narrow catwalk just wide enough for two people to walk abreast. The deck is metal plates that become slippery when wet, and the rest of the walkway is encased in chain link fencing, including above. If drivers sometimes imagine they and their cars plunging into the river when the bridge collapses, pedestrians worry about being trapped in a steel cage in the same circumstances. At least drivers would have a chance to escape through a door or window, but a pedestrian would be doomed. Besides these apocalyptic visions, pedestrians face more frequent risks from bicyclists who share this narrow enclosure. Most cyclists I’ve encounter proceed slowly and shout out so the slower-moving walker or jogger can hug the side of the enclosure to let the bicyclist pass, but that’s not always the case.

The pedestrian hazards continue on both ends of the bridge. On the southern bank (the Highlands side), pedestrians have a crossing light on the western side of the very busy Wood Street and Middlesex Street side of the intersection, but then have to cross a separate exit ramp from the bridge that has no traffic controls.

On the north (Pawtucketville) side of the bridge, to cross the intersecting Pawtucket Boulevard on foot legally and safely, one would have to walk 1100 feet to the east to the boat house where there’s a crosswalk with a dedicated traffic light. To the west, there’s a traffic light at the intersection of Old Ferry Road and the Pawtucket Boulevard, but I don’t believe there’s a pedestrian crossing there. In fact, if you look at Google Satellite view, the first crosswalk you see to the west of the Rourke Bridge is at Vesper Country Club.

The motion response said that the addition of pedestrian signals and pushbuttons and the associated upgrades to the traffic signal infrastructure and the installation of ADA compliant curb ramps would cost between $60,000 and $80,000 not including design fees. Perhaps the most important part of the motion response was its last sentence which said that the start date for the construction of the new Rourke Bridge had been moved up to 2024.

That news led to City Manager Tom Golden giving a spontaneous and enthusiastic update on that project. He said that “Option 3” has been selected. That design will have the new bridge utilize the same entrance point from Wood Street on the south side of the river but then the bridge will immediately angle almost 45 degrees to the west (towards Tyngsboro) and then go in a straight line across the river at that angle until it meets the north bank just opposite Old Ferry Road. So vehicles coming over the Rourke Bridge from the Highlands will be able to go straight onto Old Ferry or turn left or right onto Pawtucket Boulevard.

This new design completely upgrades the Old Ferry Road and Pawtucket Boulevard intersection for pedestrians. There will be actual crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection with easy access to sidewalks on both sides of the Boulevard.

Facilities for pedestrians and bikes on the bridge are prominently mentioned in a February 2022 presentation on the Mass DOT website. While the physical placement of the bridge has been decided, I don’t believe the detailed design of the bridge has been. It seems that in all cases there will be pedestrian walkways separated from the traffic on both sides of the bridge but whether there are dedicated and separated bike lanes (as opposed to bikes sharing the pedestrian space), and if there are, whether they’ll be on both sides or just on one side, remains to be decided. Several of the designs call for pedestrian overlooks on both sides of the bridge. These “bump outs” would provide a larger space for people to stop and view the river without blocking others from passing.

Notably, the bridge will have two vehicle lanes going in both directions (which doubles the number of lanes on the existing bridge). That will be an improvement by any measure but there’s no guarantee it will solve or even substantially improve vehicle traffic across the bridge at rush hour. You could make the bridge six or eight or ten lanes wide but if the vehicles don’t have somewhere to go once they get across, traffic congestion will remain.

Notwithstanding that, this seems like a great project. The Merrimack River is one of our greatest assets and it’s severely underutilized as a local amenity. Anything we can do to make it easier for people to engage with the river is a good thing.

******

Effective November 1, 2022, the Commonwealth prohibited the disposal of fabrics in your normal curbside trash collection. Clothing, shoes, and household textiles like towels and rugs now must be recycled separately rather than tossed in the trash. (The new law also bans the similar disposal of mattresses although I thought that was already the case). The city’s Solid Waste and Recycling Office webpage points you to the MassDEP Waste Disposal Bans webpage which in turn points you to DEP’s “textile recovery” page.  That has some links to entities that will take clothing and footwear and the city has a page that lists a dozen entities that may take donations of items.

According to DEP’s webpage, textiles make up more than five percent of the waste delivered to “combustion facilities” which I assume means incinerators, and I also assume textiles make up a similar percent of waste going to landfills. DEP further states that 85 percent of the textiles being thrown away could be donated, reused, or recycled, so it makes complete sense to get them out of the flow of trash disposal.

Getting rid of stuff you no longer want has to be high on the list of “first world problems” since people in much of the rest of the world are desperate to get “stuff” in the first place. But ours is a culture of consumption that requires the disposal of things being replaced. Hopefully the city will help out by identifying and promoting more entities that will help with the disposal of things that can no longer be put in the trash. 

******

Although it didn’t come up at this week’s meeting, the city council has often displayed its affection for “impact” fees paid to the city by marijuana dispensaries that locate in Lowell. The original rationale of these fees was to offset the additional costs on municipal services caused by the presence of a marijuana facility in the community. However, as implemented, there seems little correlation between the fees negotiated by the host communities and the services required by the marijuana dealers. The marijuana industry pushed back as did advocates for more equitable ownership opportunities for marijuana vending, and the legislature acted this session by passing a package of reforms that among other things, cut back on the fees that can be charged by cities.

According to a Boston Globe story this week, the new law goes into effect this coming week but there is widespread confusion over its effect on existing fee agreements: Does the new law modify them or are they grandfathered in because they were negotiated before the law took effect? Aside from that ambiguity, it does seem like the ability of cities to extract substantial revenue from new marijuana facilities, at least in the form of “impact fees” will be curtailed.

******

“That’s why they count the votes” is a saying often heard in politics. It refers to election outcomes where the candidate who was expected to lose ended up winning. However, when it comes to the race for Governor of Massachusetts this year, I don’t think anyone will be saying that on Tuesday morning. The poll most favorable to Republican nominee Geoff Diehl had him losing to Democratic nominee Maura Healey by 18 points; most polls have had Healey ahead by bigger margins.

It's rare for gubernatorial races to appear so lopsided, at least when the incumbent governor is not on the ballot as is the case this year. Here’s a review of past gubernatorial elections from 1990 until 2018:

1990 - Governor William F. Weld. In the general election, Republican William F. Weld (1,175,817 with 12,142 in Lowell) defeated Democrat John Silber (1,099,878 with 15,100 in Lowell). In the Democratic Primary, Silber (562,222) defeated Francis X. Bellotti (459,128) and Evelyn Murphy (20,054). In the Republican Primary, Weld (270,455) defeated Steven D. Pierce (176,184). Although Murphy appeared on the primary ballot, a week before the election she announced she was withdrawing from the race and endorsed Bellotti.

1994 - Governor William F. Weld. In the general election, Republican incumbent William F. Weld (1,533,390 with 15,897 in Lowell) defeated Democrat Mark Roosevelt (611,650 with 6,454 in Lowell). Weld was unopposed in the Republican Primary. In the Democratic Primary, Roosevelt (215,061) defeated George A. Bachrach (120,567) and Michael J. Barrett (111,199).

1998 - Governor A. Paul Cellucci. In the general election, Republican incumbent A. Paul Cellucci (967,160 with 9,589 in Lowell) defeated Democrat L. Scott Harshbarger (901,843 with 8,846 in Lowell). In the Democratic Primary, Harshbarger (306,883) defeated Patricia P. McGovern (189,686) and Brian J. Donnelly (101,984). In the Republican Primary, Cellucci (136,258) defeated Joseph D. Malone (95,963). Lieutenant Governor Cellucci became Governor when Governor William F. Weld resigned after being nominated by President Clinton to be U.S. Ambassador to Mexico. Weld’s nomination was later withdrawn due to opposition in the U.S. Senate and he never served as Ambassador.

2002 - Governor Mitt Romney. In the general election, Republican Mitt Romney (1,091,988 with 9,997 in Lowell) defeated Democrat Shannon P. O’Brien (985,981 with 10,085 in Lowell). In the Republican Primary, Romney was unopposed. In the Democratic Primary, O’Brien defeated four other candidates:

1. Shannon P. O’Brien - 243,039

2. Robert B. Reich - 185,315

3. Thomas F. Birmingham - 179,793

4. Warren E. Tolman - 132,157

5. Steven Grossman - 5,976

Lieutenant Governor Jane M. Swift became Governor on April 10, 2001, when A. Paul Cellucci was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Swift did not seek reelection in 2002.

2006 - Governor Deval Patrick. In the general election, Democrat Deval Patrick (1,234,984 with 11,626 in Lowell) defeated Republican Kerry M. Healey (784,342 with 7,217 in Lowell). In the Democratic Primary, Patrick (452,229) defeated Christopher F. Gabrieli (248,301) and Thomas F. Reilly (211,031). Healey was unopposed in the Republican Primary. Incumbent Mitt Romney did not seek reelection.

2010 - Governor Deval Patrick. In the general election, Democratic incumbent Deval Patrick (1,112,283 with 10,839 votes in Lowell) defeated Republican Charlie Baker (964,866 with 8,987 votes in Lowell), unenrolled candidate Timothy P. Cahill (184,395), and Green-Rainbow Party candidate Jill E. Stein (32,895). Neither Patrick nor Baker had opposition in their respective primaries.

2014 - Governor Charlie Baker. In the general election, Republican Charlie Baker (1,044,573 with 9,038 votes in Lowell) defeated Democrat Martha Coakley (1,004,408, with 10,478 in Lowell). In the Democratic Primary, Coakley (229,156) defeated Steven Grossman (196,594) and Donald M. Berwick (113,988). In the Republican Primary, Baker (116,004) defeated Mark R. Fisher (40,240). Incumbent Deval Patrick did not seek reelection.

2018 - Governor Charlie Baker. In the general election, Republican incumbent Charlie Baker (1,781,341 with 16,349 in Lowell) defeated Democrat Jay Gonzalez (885,770 with 6,528 in Lowell). In the Democratic Primary, Gonzalez (348,353) defeated Robert K. Massie (192,375). In the Republican Primary, Baker (174,126) defeated Scott D. Lively (98,421).