Does anyone else find irony in a company that brings for-profit capitalism to healthcare complaining about "unfair competition" if another institution invades what it considers its monopoly-protected turf?
MetroWest Medical Center is owned by Vanguard Health Systems, a multi-billion-dollar company that turned a $16 million profit from the (continuing) operations of 15 hospitals around the country in the last quarter. Vanguard Health Systems' Web site boasts that the company brings "the business acumen of a privately owned organization" and "the strengths of a for-profit corporation" to its hospitals (although good luck finding anything about that on the MetroWest hospitals' own site).
You can't have it both ways. You can't take advantage of free-market capitalism to earn a profit for investors from treating people's injuries and illnesses, and then complain about competition.
June 16, 2009
May 26, 2009
Rte. 126 Corridor Study in the Works
A Route 126 Corridor Transportation Improvement Study will soon be underway in Framingham, Ashland, Holliston, Medway and Bellingham. The goal is to improve access to commercial, retail, educational and services.
The study, under the aegis of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, will recommend design, traffic and other changes to the corridor. There will be "special emphasis on the effective and safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists," according to a statement issued by state Rep. Pam Richardson. "Bus service improvement recommendations may also be developed."
Rte. 126 in Framingham is one of the roadways desperately needing a better pedestrian environment, especially when it comes to crossing intersections on foot. If you check out a map I created a couple of years ago of accidents in Framingham where pedestrians were injured (2003-2005), you'll see a huge cluster of pins along the Rte. 126 corridor. Improved walker safety in this area is clearly needed.
Aesthetic improvements are also needed, as well as better walkways: Many sidewalks are narrow with no buffer between walkers and traffic, and some almost impassable in spots due to poorly situated utility poles and other obstacles.
The project will start with "formation of an advisory task force that includes town officials, affected residents, members of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the Massachusetts Highway Department, and the Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works, as well as local Senators and Representatives," Rep. Richardson's statement says. The task force is supposed to meet in mid-June and then again "within 12 months."
The study, under the aegis of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, will recommend design, traffic and other changes to the corridor. There will be "special emphasis on the effective and safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists," according to a statement issued by state Rep. Pam Richardson. "Bus service improvement recommendations may also be developed."
Rte. 126 in Framingham is one of the roadways desperately needing a better pedestrian environment, especially when it comes to crossing intersections on foot. If you check out a map I created a couple of years ago of accidents in Framingham where pedestrians were injured (2003-2005), you'll see a huge cluster of pins along the Rte. 126 corridor. Improved walker safety in this area is clearly needed.
Aesthetic improvements are also needed, as well as better walkways: Many sidewalks are narrow with no buffer between walkers and traffic, and some almost impassable in spots due to poorly situated utility poles and other obstacles.
The project will start with "formation of an advisory task force that includes town officials, affected residents, members of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the Massachusetts Highway Department, and the Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works, as well as local Senators and Representatives," Rep. Richardson's statement says. The task force is supposed to meet in mid-June and then again "within 12 months."
May 21, 2009
Good news: Local officials get serious about mall-area walkability
I was heartened to see a piece in today's Globe West focusing on attempts by Framingham and Natick officials "to make the retail sprawl of Route 9 more pedestrian friendly with better sidewalks, benches, and other amenities."
Great news! ... especially for those of us who work within walking distance of the stores, but who can't actually walk to the mall because it's so dangerous and unpleasant to cross major intersections in the way.
It's all but pointless to promote a retail district like "the Golden Triangle" without offering an attractive, appealing way to walk within it. After all, if you've got to get in your car and battle traffic congestion to get from one place to another, it no longer matters much whether you're going half a mile, a mile or a couple of miles; the synergy of a retail district is lost. Without a walkable "park once, walk to multiple destinations" retail center, you lose the advantage of serendipity -- stumbling upon a destination you didn't know would interest you until you saw it. This is the philosophy behind any well-designed individual store -- put related attractive products close together -- or shopping mall (not to mention Web site). But you can't browse or window shop while you're in a moving vehicle. Nor do you want to in the current hideous walking environment within Golden Triangle destinations.
Walkability means more than the presence of barely usable, ugly sidewalks that make it theoretically possible to get from one place to another on foot. Most people will not walk between retail destinations unless there is a pathway that feels safe and comfortable, and is at least moderately aesthetically pleasing. A sidewalk with 8 lanes of traffic on one side and acres of asphalt on the other, with no buffer or greenery on either side, will not be used by any but the hardiest of pedestrians. To encourage widespread walking will require more than adding a few benches and pretty lights; we need appealing streetscapes that offer buffers between walkers and vehicles and sizeable medians (think Beacon Street in Brookline) for pedestrian crossings. Based on today's article, I'm cautiously optimistic that some of our planning officials support the need for true walkability.
Great news! ... especially for those of us who work within walking distance of the stores, but who can't actually walk to the mall because it's so dangerous and unpleasant to cross major intersections in the way.
It's all but pointless to promote a retail district like "the Golden Triangle" without offering an attractive, appealing way to walk within it. After all, if you've got to get in your car and battle traffic congestion to get from one place to another, it no longer matters much whether you're going half a mile, a mile or a couple of miles; the synergy of a retail district is lost. Without a walkable "park once, walk to multiple destinations" retail center, you lose the advantage of serendipity -- stumbling upon a destination you didn't know would interest you until you saw it. This is the philosophy behind any well-designed individual store -- put related attractive products close together -- or shopping mall (not to mention Web site). But you can't browse or window shop while you're in a moving vehicle. Nor do you want to in the current hideous walking environment within Golden Triangle destinations.
Walkability means more than the presence of barely usable, ugly sidewalks that make it theoretically possible to get from one place to another on foot. Most people will not walk between retail destinations unless there is a pathway that feels safe and comfortable, and is at least moderately aesthetically pleasing. A sidewalk with 8 lanes of traffic on one side and acres of asphalt on the other, with no buffer or greenery on either side, will not be used by any but the hardiest of pedestrians. To encourage widespread walking will require more than adding a few benches and pretty lights; we need appealing streetscapes that offer buffers between walkers and vehicles and sizeable medians (think Beacon Street in Brookline) for pedestrian crossings. Based on today's article, I'm cautiously optimistic that some of our planning officials support the need for true walkability.
April 6, 2009
Life in downtown Framingham this weekend
It was what I called "artists' weekend" in Framingham last weekend, with open studios at Fountain Street downtown and in Saxonville, as well as a free family afternoon at the Danforth Museum. Plus the usual cultural activities at the Amazing Things arts center. And while it's a cliche that artists taking advantage of cheap loft space can help bring vibrancy to a downtown center, well, cliches often become cliches because they speak (some) truth.
I went with a friend Saturday first to Panza Shoes downtown, which was surprisingly bustling; and then to the Fountain Street open house. There's a sizable free parking area at the Fountain Street studio building, and still tough to find a spot there; turnout was strong, and the event larger -- and more enjoyable -- than I expected. We got there around 3 and didn't get to see everything before things closed up at 5.
What was missing, though, was an appealing pedestrian streetscape between destinations like Panza and Fountain Street. There was a ton of auto traffic, but few pedestrians. And foot traffic is key in order to take advantage of multiple attractions and create a critical mass.
Downtown Framingham does have some compelling destinations: Amazing Things, Panza, the Danforth. What it does not yet have is synergy between them, because there are too many unattractive gaps between them. It's not yet a "park once, walk to many" environment. But there's potential. However, people must realize that creating a compelling ambiance for walkers is not a frill; it's essential for the next step of downtown revitalization.
I went with a friend Saturday first to Panza Shoes downtown, which was surprisingly bustling; and then to the Fountain Street open house. There's a sizable free parking area at the Fountain Street studio building, and still tough to find a spot there; turnout was strong, and the event larger -- and more enjoyable -- than I expected. We got there around 3 and didn't get to see everything before things closed up at 5.
What was missing, though, was an appealing pedestrian streetscape between destinations like Panza and Fountain Street. There was a ton of auto traffic, but few pedestrians. And foot traffic is key in order to take advantage of multiple attractions and create a critical mass.
Downtown Framingham does have some compelling destinations: Amazing Things, Panza, the Danforth. What it does not yet have is synergy between them, because there are too many unattractive gaps between them. It's not yet a "park once, walk to many" environment. But there's potential. However, people must realize that creating a compelling ambiance for walkers is not a frill; it's essential for the next step of downtown revitalization.
March 23, 2009
Downtown retail districts need residences
The Boston Globe had a piece this weekend about the Downtown Crossing shopping district, with the online title: "Without car traffic, Downtown Crossing loses its charm at night." As if autos driving through a neighborhood with shuttered stores and zero pedestrian traffic is going to bring the area back to life.
I saw the same thing last weekend when I was in Indianapolis on business, in the city center, and there were wide streets with ample parking everywhere. But without a critical mass of residences in an area along with an appealing pedestrian environment to draw them from home to destinations on foot, the neighborhood street got awfully lonely at night.
And if there's too much emphasis on broad streets with quickly moving traffic, there's a major risk of killing off after-dark foot traffic altogether.
If you want to argue that vehicular access is necessary to attract more residential development along the block, fine. But just letting cars drive through won't bring vibrant nightlife back to Washington Street. Newbury Street "works" not because there are cars, but because there's the proper mix of businesses that appeal to people on foot, pedestrian-friendly streetscape including architecture that makes people want to stroll and window-shop, and a relatively narrow conduit for vehicles that usually must move slowly through the area.
I saw the same thing last weekend when I was in Indianapolis on business, in the city center, and there were wide streets with ample parking everywhere. But without a critical mass of residences in an area along with an appealing pedestrian environment to draw them from home to destinations on foot, the neighborhood street got awfully lonely at night.
And if there's too much emphasis on broad streets with quickly moving traffic, there's a major risk of killing off after-dark foot traffic altogether.
If you want to argue that vehicular access is necessary to attract more residential development along the block, fine. But just letting cars drive through won't bring vibrant nightlife back to Washington Street. Newbury Street "works" not because there are cars, but because there's the proper mix of businesses that appeal to people on foot, pedestrian-friendly streetscape including architecture that makes people want to stroll and window-shop, and a relatively narrow conduit for vehicles that usually must move slowly through the area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)