What's Wrong with Article 13?

Article 13 began life as a resolution calling for the installation of a pedestrian-actuated traffic control signal at the Green St. crosswalk in Coolidge Corner.  That's the crosswalk going from Friendly's to Upper Crust and the Coolidge Corner Theater at the corner of Green St. and Harvard St. in the heart of our beloved CC shopping district.  The Article has since been amended to call for a study of said light.

The petitioner claims that all will be right with the universe if we do this.  In this alternate universe, pedestrians will line up and press the button, then patiently wait a minute and a half, happy to cross when the whooshing vehicles are finally forced to stop by the red light, the pedestrians will scurry quickly across, then once again the vehicles will resume whooshing.  All this will occur because the traffic lights at the nearby intersections at Beacon and Babcock will be coordinated and perfectly synced to move the traffic in seamless flow.  Too bad none of this alternate reality scenario resembles reality.

I can appreciate the appeal and simple logic of this idea.  Unfortunately, the traffic and pedestrian flows along this stretch of Harvard are anything but simple and the addition of a traffic control signal at Green St. will wreak havoc to traffic flows along this stretch of Harvard.  Consider the following:  1) Traffic flows are two-way and these two-way flows are not equally balanced.  2) There are turning vehicles that enter the traffic stream on Harvard St., even when Harvard St. is red at Beacon.  Vehicles turn right, going north from westbound Beacon, vehicles turn left from westbound Babcock.  3) These folks, along with those at the tail end of the previous green light and other, non-synced flows (contrary to popular belief the lights cannot be perfectly synched due to reasons #1 and #2)  will be stopped for 20 seconds or more at the new light at the Green St. cross walk.  Hardly a recipe for whooshing.  4)  If you think slowing and occasionally stopping for pedestrians at the crosswalk is annoying for drivers now, imagine a light stopping all traffic for one-half of the available time (Beacon green), whenever anyone may have pushed the button, whether they are there now or not.  and 5) The travel lanes widen to two just before and through the Beacon St. intersection, then suddenly tapering down to one again, right before the cross walk.  This bulge and squeeze is the real reason there is a flow issue at Beacon and Harvard, not the cross walk.

The petitioner has told us that the pedestrian light is not a new idea, that its been studied and recommended before.  This is absolutely not true.  The 2005 study he cites had it wrong, (there existing conditions report stated that there was already a light there), and simply recommended the signals be coordinated.  Clearly, these folks had a keen power of observation.  The other 2009 study concluded that the Green St. crosswalk did not seem to be a dominant issue creating backups.  This was based on field observation and not a study of potential impacts.  The petitioner also stated that all other options for improvement had been tried.  Again, not true.  Professor Peter Furth, former Transportation Board member, professor of civil engineering at Northeastern University, PhD from MIT in Transportation Systems and recipient of the 2004, Best Paper award from the Transportation Research Board Committee on Traffic Signal Systems, strongly warns against signalizing the crosswalk.  Peter's advanced traffic signal control class looked at this stretch of Harvard St. as a case study.  They concluded that the core problem was that too many vehicles were passing through the Beacon St. intersection and that this problem could be corrected by shortening the length of the traffic signal cycle.  Professor Furth strongly warns against putting such a light here, and as a resident of Brookline he strongly objects, noting how well the crosswalk works now and understanding the benefits to maintaining a safe, pedestrian friendly shopping district.  Professor Furth's study, complete with traffic flow simulations is the most indepth study done to date, and yet the petitioner did not even bother to read it.   Brookline's Director of Engineering, Peter Ditto testified at the Selectmen's hearing on this Article that his Department did not feel a pedestrian-actuated light should be studied.

There is Town wide desire to improve travel conditions in Coolidge Corner, which is why the petitioner has succeeded in gathering some support for the article, but there is also a clear sense, expressed by many, that we should be looking more holistically at travel conditions near Beacon and Harvard and that we should not be entering into a study already having concluded what the source and solution to the problem is.   The petitioner has assured us that other ideas will be looked at.  Yet, this is not what the resolution says, and the resolution cannot be modified because it would become a fundamentally different Article.  I don't know about you but I am not comfortable giving my support to something based on the assurance that really, its not what it says it is.

The fact is the petitioner has decided what improvement is desirable and concluded that it would have a positive result, all without the benefit of professional knowledge, without supporting facts or analysis, without consultation with the Town staff or boards responsible for these decisions, who have been, by the way, working diligently observing, testing and working with consultants to solve the problem.  Doesn't their opinion matter? 

So, what’s wrong with passing the Article and studying the traffic signal?  Surely, the study will come to the same conclusions as Professor Furth and the idea of the traffic signal will be dropped.  For starters, such a study looks at the wrong thing, making it a waste of Town resources, we already have the advantage of a high-caliber free study showing us the way towards a promising alternative improvement.  Second,  directing the scope, focus and policy direction of a consultant’s work away from the fundamental problem and towards a single, ill conceived and predetermined result is bad science and bad policy and will prevent us from identifying better, more cost effective solutions that work for everyone, whether on foot, bike or in a car.  And third, let's pass a resolution that lets the professionals do their job, instead of telling them what the conclusion is before they start.

Rethinking Coolidge Corner Lane Scheme

I have some serious concerns about the latest Transportation Board proposal for lane changes at the Harvard/Beacon intersection at Coolidge Corner.

The most recently proposed plan, to reduce the number of southbound Harvard Street lanes to one on the north side of Beacon St., remove the median on this same side of the intersection and add an additional northbound lane,  has come about as a result of focusing entirely on trying to solve the problem of gridlock or “blocking” that occurs regularly at this intersection. While this is a serious problem, I do not think the proposed solution will be effective, nor does it address the most prominent contributing factor. However, in addition to these shortcomings, I fear we have overlooked some of the serious negative consequences likely to result from this narrowly focused attempt to “fix the problem”.

We can surely all agree that there is a heavy volume of vehicle traffic flowing North on Harvard St. Beyond this point, I fear there are as many opinions as there are individuals. My professional experience leads me to the conclusion that there are two principle reasons why the traffic fails to clear the intersection before the green signal activates (and then frustrates) the westbound Beacon St. flows. Number one is the simple fact that two lanes of traffic must merge into one. Allowing a bit more space for this to occur by having an additional lane accepting traffic on the far side of the intersection will not sufficiently accommodate the merging traffic. To complicate things, your proposal retains curbside parking here. While I support maintaining the parking for its traffic calming and pedestrian buffer functions, the “friction” caused by parking vehicles and the inevitable double parkers will minimize the effectiveness of the scheme you are proposing if your goal was to maximize traffic flow through this bottle neck.

A much more effective solution would be to eliminate the two to one lane merge all together by making the northbound right hand lane on the south side of Harvard for right turns and buses only. That way only one through lane would be crossing Beacon St. to begin with. Yes, this will extend queue’s on Harvard St. A don’t block the box treatment and enforcement would be necessary at Longwood. Otherwise, there is sufficient storage capacity for the resulting queue. Yes, traffic will back up on Harvard, it already does, but the “flow” will be regulated before it enters the intersection at Beacon and the problem will be eliminated.

Another contributing factor to the gridlock problem relates to the width of Beacon St. It appears that the signal timing does not adequately compensate for this. It appears that some vehicles entering the intersection on the yellow (and sometimes red) do not have adequate time to travel the full distance to clear the intersection, regardless of or made worse by the delay at the merge. If the clearance time were lengthened, that is if the signal on Beacon St. simply stayed red longer, drivers would be spared the frustration.

Even if, after considering my comments you still believe the proposed changes will work for the limited goal of moving more vehicles through this very small segment of our roadway network, I ask that we take a moment to stand back and ask ourselves what our overall goal should be and what the wider consequences from this change may be.

Coolidge Corner is, for many a vital transportation and commercial hub. Thousands of commuters from the T stream through daily, stopping at shops and restaurants on their way. Thousands more visit daily from home on foot. It is for their comfort and safety that I object to this scheme. The median in the middle of Harvard Street is a vital refuge for many a pedestrian, especially those who have difficulty speedily crossing in front of impatient drivers. I think it should be extended rather than eliminated. Consider also the effect of combining the through and right turn lane in the southbound direction. Who hasn’t been walking across the street, only to hear the car behind the car waiting for you lay on its horn? The volume of pedestrians is heavy at this intersection. We should be really glad for the high pedestrian volume because if each one those people were in a car, they would be taking up 60 times more space than they do on foot, none of us would be going anywhere.

Because of the heavy volume of pedestrians, right turning vehicles will sometimes wait a long time before they can turn, thus blocking the through travel. How patient will those drivers be after waiting through a light or two? How safe, comfortable or relaxed will the pedestrian crossing the street in front of those drivers be?

Already, the automobile is favored over the pedestrian at this intersection. There is no protected pedestrian phase, despite the heavy pedestrian volume. Many times car drivers play dodgem trying to turn through a group of pedestrians. All of this is particularly menacing for elderly or disabled people. Most people have no idea that they must press the very distant button (which is often blocked by snow mounds) to get a walk signal. They either wait and wait, or finally give up and go. This is especially problematic for parents with young children who are trying to teach their kids how to cross safely using the signal. If we make it more difficult and dangerous and unpleasant to walk, which I think this scheme does, we are “shooting ourselves in the foot” in terms of mitigating congestion or maximizing the capacity of our infrastructure, as walkers will take to cars because they no longer feel safe. Infrastructure is a precursor to activity. Make room for more cars and you get more cars. Make it more pleasant to walk and more people will walk. It is that simple. Make Coolidge Corner more people friendly and you get more people.

Paying attention to and giving greater accommodation to those on foot focuses our attention on the human scale and impacts the quality of everyone’s experience in Coolidge Corner. We have a choice. Can we find a balance between accommodating the through traffic and making Coolidge Corner a people place? I hope so.

Logical Conclusion of Parking Regulations not Logical

I know what you are thinking, here we go again with the parking! But the truth of the matter is that the parking requirements that are incorporated into our zoning ordinance are just as influential as the building size and use requirements in determining what kind of development we will end up with. In addition, the method of applying the standards and reviewing each parcel and building proposal in isolation, treating it as if it were it's own universe yields a disjointed and dysfunctional public realm. But back to the subject at hand. The parking requirements.

Each requirement taken in isolation may seem reasonable, but the effects are profound and far reaching. For an area like Coolidge Corner we have to ask ourselves what kind of place are we trying to build? The standards we have set are more suitable for the suburbs. They are the norm and have been adopted throughout the land, and we can see the results. The building in isolation surrounded by a sea of parking. These regulations are based on a standard number of automobile trips that are "drawn" to a certain type of building, this is known as Trip Generation and is based on all kinds of science. Build an office out in the suburbs and a certain number of cars will come and go on a given day because the people working there have no other way to get there! It is fairly easy to predict then, based on the size of the building, how many auto trips will come and go. From there we can come up with a formula for a minimum number of parking spaces per a unit of building square footage, and voila a parking requirement.

By requiring developers to provide on-site parking for every new building, be it housing, office or commercial we are subsidizing and encouraging driving and increasing the costs to both build and ultimately occupy those homes and businesses. In an area rich in alternative transportation options this makes no sense. Those in need of affordable housing and small businesses looking for affordable rents could benefit from the infrastructure expenditure savings realized through a relaxation of excessive on-site parking requirements. In terms of the affordable housing household the savings are two fold. The unit is cheaper because they aren't buying an amenity they do not need (excess parking) and because they are living within close proximity of transit they need not spend such a large portion of their income on automobile costs.

In addition to the cost savings the benefits to the environment, both in terms of reduced pollution and energy savings and the livability of a humanly oriented public realm cannot be overstated. By reducing the pervasiveness of the automobile in our environment we remove a huge source of stress for the pedestrian. Citizens are coming to realize the joys of mingling with others in a relaxed public setting. This increased awareness has spread through the growing publicity surrounding the many successfully created public spaces in cities and towns around the globe. Brookline has the perfect setting for creating such a place and those who are raising their voices to demand such a place are speaking for future generations and the public in general.

This is not an either or proposition. There will still be people who will need to drive to Coolidge Corner. However, we need to plan for parking for the area as a whole and not force each parcel to provide on-site parking. This destroys the economics and walkability of our core commercial district. Lets see if we can't get a little more creative. We should do everything we can to make walking, taking the T and biking attractive fun and convenient. We should not subsidize and encourage driving. We should not destroy the street scape and pedestrian environment just to accommodate the automobile.

Until we come to grips with the ramifications of our unacquainted parking requirements. The reason we have heard of only one development proposal for the Centre Street parking lot, a nine story hotel, is because a hotel has a much lower on-site parking requirement than does commercial, office or residential uses. And still it must be completely out of scale (9 stories tall) in order to be economically viable. Do we really want to sacrifice the benefits to our community that other, more locally usable commercial establishments or affordable housing might bring, just to meet an outdated, inappropriate parking standard?
[where:Brookline, MA 02446]

Further Comments on the Proposed Robotic Parking Structure

I appreciate that Mr. Brown took the time to read and respond to my previous guest column in the TAB about his proposed robotic parking garage for Coolidge Corner. Discussion and dialogue are always good things. However, his response indicates that he has fundamentally misunderstood the reasons for my objection to the deck itself and most importantly to its proposed location.

The site in question, an oddly configured piece of property behind the Coolidge Corner Theater is valuable, not because of what it is now, but because of its location and what it could become. Strategically linked to Beacon and Harvard Streets with pedestrian passageways, this piece of land and the adjoining existing parking area could become part of a pedestrian friendly mixed-use retail and public gathering place, something the Coolidge Corner District Planning Council has clearly identified as a priority. I believe the future vitality of Coolidge Corner is dependent upon supporting, expanding and enabling its best features, namely our unique local businesses and relaxing pedestrian environment. These features will draw people from far and near who are seeking authenticity and interaction in an increasingly mediated and isolated world. Customers need to be able to get to the businesses, this is what is axiomatic, not that they must drive an automobile and park it directly in front (or back) of their destination. We need to get creative in looking at how to better support all forms of transportation to Coolidge Corner.

The site now may be a bleak parking area at the back of a building, hardly desirable, as Mr. Brown points out. But joined with the adjacent lot, and through careful design, judicious plantings, pedestrian amenities and linkages and careful control of service vehicles, a uniquely compelling place could be created. Even if the site remains a service drive that is simply screened on the edge of the civic space it is still not an appropriate location for the large imposing deck. Bringing heavy vehicle traffic into this space is not compatible with a public gathering space, and as I stated in my original column there are some serious traffic flow consequences with this location as well. Far from being anti-progress as Mr. Brown suggests, those with an alternative vision are looking towards the future, one that is supportive of community life and in the long term responsive to the challenges of climate change.

For the immediate future, we have existing parking alternatives that have not been fully utilized. As Mr. Brown notes, I am lucky enough to be able to walk to Coolidge Corner from my home, a distance of a little over ¼ of a mile. If he can acknowledge the convenience of this, how is it then that parking at the Webster Street hotel and walking across the street, is too much of a hassle for everyone else? The Transportation Solutions study told us, through empirical methods, not anecdotal stories, that we have additional parking capacity still to use in Coolidge Corner, and that better information and management would maximize its use. While traffic and parking are continuing challenges, they require comprehensive technical study and creative solutions that include both management, and policy solutions as well as possible capacity expansions.

There are many questions to consider about the technology of the robotic parking garage as well. Just a few of them are, is it suitable for short term parking, which is what we need in Coolidge Corner? Are they noisy? How reliable are they? All the decks I have seen are at least 80 ft. tall. Can they be built shorter? In our haste to solve a perceived parking problem, let us hope we do not act in a way that will disappoint the future generations of Brookliner's.

Harold Brown's Proposed Robotic Parking

Mr. Brown's proposal for a robotic parking garage in Coolidge Corner is no doubt well intentioned and generous. An effort to minimize it's visual impact has obviously been made by "tucking" it behind the Coolidge Corner Theater. The whole idea of going vertical by deploying the robotic parking technology attempts to accommodate many vehicles without devoting a lot of land area to it, in a sense attempting to let us have our cake and eat it too. If we replace the existing surface parking with vertical parking, we are in effect gaining some land area that could be put to much better use. These efforts reveal Mr. Brown's understanding of the concerns and issues inherent in providing increased parking in Coolidge Corner.

Unfortunately, despite these laudable goals and the application of advanced technology, the resulting negative impacts of going forward with this proposal will far outweigh the potential gains. No matter how small and hidden we try to make a parking garage we are still choosing to give over a key part of our public realm to automobiles, rather than to people, or new businesses and the impacts of this choice go far beyond the site of the garage. The planning process is still underway that seeks to identify the development goals for the town owned land that is currently the Centre Street parking lot. We must take the time to look at the overall site and how it's development fits in with the future we wish to see for Coolidge Corner. It would be premature to decide now to build just one little piece of the puzzle and it would lock us into a scenario from which there would be no escape.

On a very basic level, there are serious traffic impacts if the robotic structure's 130 spaces were built in addition to the existing parking. An additional 130 parking spaces and all the vehicle trips in and out of them. Imagine the driveway at the Centre Street parking lot with twice as many vehicles traveling in and out. The driveway is too close to the Beacon Street intersection and it would become extremely difficult to turn left out of the lot. Then there is the left turn from Beacon to Centre Street, already a nightmare, now double the number of people trying to make that turn. Now imagine you are trying to walk down Centre Street, but you have to wade through all those cars driven by desperate people trying to get out. Then there is the question of where would the cars line up as they wait to get into the robotic deck? With all those additional cars, right next to all those occupied buildings, we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to be concentrating all those harmful emissions here? Functionally there are some really serious problems, but these are not the only or even the most important reasons why the structure should not be built.

I am aware that many are convinced that we need more parking in Coolidge Corner. Part of this perception is tied into the issue of long term parking needs for employees working at Coolidge Corner businesses. This is an issue that is being addressed separately, and employee parking would not be located here. The recent parking study performed by Traffic Solutions concluded that rather than a shortage of parking spaces, what is really happening is we are falling short in terms of utilizing the parking we do have. The study notes that regulations are not being fully enforced that would improve parking turnover, thereby making more spaces available for patrons. Additionally, available parking often goes unused due to lack of driver knowledge. People go to look for parking at the few places they are familiar with and don't bother to find out about other spaces that go unused. Better signage and public education could go a long way to address this knowledge gap.

There is disagreement about parking availability, and people's beliefs are based on perceptions. What is really at the heart of this debate are expectations. If everyone defines available parking as being able to drive and park right in front of your destination, then there is a lack of parking. What people don't realize is that fulfilling this expectation implies a trade-off. If we choose to make providing ultra-convenient parking our priority, we are precluding other uses for the land and making the public realm in that central location more hostile to the pedestrian. It's a question of location.

If we build this structure on our one remaining prime piece of land in Coolidge Corner, we will not be encouraging alternative transportation or the use of the alternative parking lots we already have. If we have learned anything about the automobile and cities it is that places that cater exclusively to cars are not very nice places to walk through or near. If we want a commercial core that has a lively street life, one that is pleasant to stroll through and to window shop, to sit on a bench, or to spend time in our hoped for new civic space, it cannot be successful if all those people have to cross many busy driveways, or walk through parking lots or sit next to a parking garage.

If we can park a block away and walk, or better yet take the T, walk or ride a bike, we can have a commercial core that we will want to visit and spend time in. There is a self-fulfilling aspect to building parking at such a central location. If that parking space is there, people will drive, when they could perhaps have chosen not to drive. With streetscape amenities, vital ground floor retail and civic space, the area becomes one that is nurturing to relaxation and community life. This is what we would be giving up. What we want is to create is a commercial area that is so compelling people will want to come here even if they can't park in front of the store. If convenient parking were all that we had to offer, the customer might as well go to the mall. Shopping has become more than just shopping in our culture, people are looking for an experience and genuine human interaction, along with unique retail offerings. We are poised to provide this. People will come from further away because it will be inviting. Think about the vast number of people with access to the MBTA who are potential new customers.

Lowering our parking expectations is a long term proposition with great potential benefits besides just improved land use. There are the environmental benefits from people switching to the T to get here. New employees will self-select from the pool of those who have good T access for their commute. The Traffic Solutions parking study also showed that Brookline's current zoning dictates parking requirements that are one-third to one-half higher than rates in Cambridge, Somerville and the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. We should lower the parking requirements. This will encourage use of alternative transportation, and it will encourage mixed use development, which could ultimately reduce auto-dependent travel as well.

Rather than just arguing about whether or not we have a parking shortage, we need to be honest about what we are really asking for and giving up when we want more parking behind the Coolidge Corner Theater. It is tempting to accept Mr. Brown's generosity, especially since the economics of developing the site are so challenging. Nonetheless, I encourage those who are planning for CC's future to keep their eyes on the prize and envision what that space could be, an asset for our community life and a place bursting with business opportunities.

Coolidge Corner's Future

What do we love about Coolidge Corner? I love the fact that I can walk there to take care of my daily errands, with the occasional special treat of taking in a movie or browsing at Booksmith. If I'm feeling cooped up or lonely, I can just walk down and have a cup of tea at Peet's. Everyone has their favorite spots. It's not like everyplace else. It's not the mall. We can talk to the people who own their own businesses.

Coolidge Corner is the social hub of Brookline. It's where we are most likely to run into our neighbors. CC defines our town in the minds of many. But now we have just learned the distressing news that instead of McDonald's and Zeeba's flower shop we are to have yet another bank. How utterly boring. Now, I'm no fan of McDonald's (I have read Fast Food Nation and seen Supersize Me), but at least people of all walks of life could get a snack or meal there. Zeeba's Exotic Flowers had some of the best floral arrangements in town. They will be sorely missed.

A bank does not generate much foot traffic. Their store window does not offer visual stimulation or an inviting setting. They are closed at night, taking away from the life of the street for evening saunterers. It's as bad as another cell phone store. Must we allow any business that wants to set up shop? Can we only have those businesses backed by large corporations with big bucks to spend? We are losing the soul of our town. Why not offer a tax break to independents? When it comes time to permit development in CC why not offer incentives to those developers who will put locally owned retail businesses on the first floor? This is a trend we can no longer ignore. It is not going to fix itself and we can't count on being lucky. The economic forces bringing the chains to our door will not change. We need to address them in a meaningful way.

There has been an ongoing planning effort underway in CC. The goals are two-fold. One to determine what we would like to see built in a few spots that are ripe for redevelopment and two to help protect the surrounding neighborhoods from tear downs that result in overly dense rebuilding and loss of character. Mention has been made of implementing "form-based zoning", which focuses more on regulating the streetscape and building design and scale of new building. It's a way to enforce more appropriate contextualizing of new building. All good. The neighborhoods would gain a great deal by establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts.

But what would make CC a great place, a special place that reflects our values and is welcoming and fun to visit? Retaining independent businesses is a good start. Better streetscape design would really help. Keeping in mind that CC is the social hub of Brookline, it becomes apparent that what we are lacking is a public gathering place. Anyone who has experienced the festive atmosphere at the farmer's market understands that it is popular for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is its social function. Why not extend that idea to a year round market? Like the Pike's Place market in Seattle. Part of the market would have to be indoors, and it should include fresh food, prepared food and places to eat in a public setting. It would have to be town owned and administered to help the fresh food providers survive economically, but what an asset for the town!

Some have expressed a desire for "green space" in CC. While I am as much of a tree-hugger as anyone, I think this is misguided. We need a people place. That's what CC is all about. If we think of our public place as a "Plaza" we get the right idea. Of course it could have small ornamental trees, a fountain, even tall grasses in planters, a spot of grass maybe even, but a "nature" area it is not. Not a patch of grass to look at, no, it needs to be a place with tons of seating for people watching. Maybe it could even be a site for outdoors concerts, poetry readings, drama, etc. It could never be big enough to be a true natural area, and we don't go to CC for solitude. Fortunately we have Hall's Pond near to us for that.

CC is at a crossroads. It is up to us to envision the CC of the future. Now is the time to use our imaginations and let the ideas fly. Remember the Brookline 300 celebration? All of those people surging down Harvard Street? There was a palpable sense of shared pride and happiness in our town's success. All of those people would love to come back to experience that type of "street life" again. As we withdrawal more and more into our private domains and the Internet, etc. we need that experience of community and human contact even more.

Why not think about sharing the road with people a bit more? There are plenty of ways to accomplish this, through wider sidewalks, traffic calming, even selective street closings. We need to make CC more friendly to the pedestrian, not the car. It's the walkablity and pedestrian environment in consort with its unique shops, that makes CC special and the better we make that, the more people will come. People are yearning to experience environments that are not the ubiquitous suburban sprawl swallowing much of the rest of our country.

Our history has blessed us with a built environment made before the automobile took over our public realm. Its dense enough to support mass transit, rich in beautiful architecture, and softened with lots of trees, but we can not coast on our laurels and hope for the best. The same threats and economic forces that have created anywhere USA are present and active here too. Only vigilance, regulatory change and a clearly articulated vision of something other will protect us.

What would you like to see in Coolidge Corner's future?