Those are usually motion sensors, not red light cams. Some are cameras but no town wants to be the first to turn them on because they're worried it'll damage the local economy.

There are no red light cameras in MA, so even if you fuck it up, you're fine if you don't crash

I only hope that in 20 years when you see what you've done to the poor people of WMA, you'll have the strength do the right thing.

Now now, you and me both know you can't prove a negative.

I have real work to do voting against you. No rail to Boston if I can help it

>How does improving the economy is a specific area NOT benefit the people living in it? Jobs? Food? Accessibility to services, medical care, businesses…

Oh, easy. When it doesn't come with improved conditions, it tends to lead to social cohesion and social capital loss while simultaneously displacing poor people and damaging their health.

The mistake you're making, and the one that the state documents refuse to address, is what happens to the people who are already there.

>You do know the gentrification is not the result solely of expanding public transport right? Have you seen the housing prices in the last three years WITHOUT the railway?

CDC indicates it's mostly driven by push factors, such as a lack of housing and massive job growth in nearby cities. Maybe we can think of a city with these issues nearby?

>The east west rail is NOT the MBTA. It can connect and work in conjunction with the MBTA.

Metro area, not MBTA. You know. Metro West, but further west. The W towns, if you don't know where that is.

>And you can’t just spitball with no evidence. Try reading the earth of documents that have been a published that I linked you too.

I did. They're... not encouraging. It pretty much confirms my concerns that they're just looking to expand the Boston metro

So maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, public transit in Springfield might, say, reduce congestion and car dependency in the area and make it a more attractive location to set up shop for people not working in labs in Boston?

I'm not opposed to regional transport, I'm very specifically opposed to the expansion of the Boston Metro. That's a concern I haven't seen addressed.

>The region does NOT mean the soil. And it’s offensive that you think my sourced comments about economic benefits for the people in the region means I think I’m special.

Gentrification is well-studied. It has been creeping West across Metro West. Rent goes up, people head West where they can afford homes without changing jobs, or leave all-together. In case you're unfamiliar, it's a process whereby something brings wealthy individuals into the area, driving up costs and displacing local residents.

My question is how the rail, as proposed, will improve the lives of the people already in the Pioneer Valley instead of displace them as has happened from New Hampshire to Braintree to Worcester. Your link shows it'll improve the economy, sure. But who will benefit is more important to me than how large the benefits are.

The region meaning the soil. Dirt doesn't care about economic development. People do. How is this going to benefit the people who are already there instead of displacing them, as happened all the way to Worcester. In other words, what makes you special?

Know what might work better? PVTA getting enough money to kick off streetcar service in Springfield would be a good start. It would be hard to manage it worse than the MBTA manages every rail they touch.

>Specifically for the economic benefits to our region.

Fuck the region. I care about the people and the culture. Land doesn't need economic opportunity, people do. How are you planning to stop the fine people of Framingham or Weymouth from displacing locals like they have in Worcester County?

High-speed east-west rail would enable Boston to do to Springfield exactly what it's done to Worcester after the commuter rail started up in 1994. Displace locals, jack up property values, commute to Boston by high-speed rail, overwhelm the locals in elections, and degrade the local community.

Therefore, no rail. Rail bad. Go build skyscrapers in Salem and then we'll talk.

I'm from the area, I totally get it. I remember people saying "that tornado was the best thing that ever happened to us" when the casino went up, on account of it handling demolition of historic sites free of charge.

Know why isn't pushing for economic development in Springfield? The 2/3rds of voters who live in the Boston Metro. They want to squeeze every penny out of Springfield and every acre out of Worcester so they don't have to confront the truth that their lifestyle is unsustainable.

Businesses always follow the law, right?

For an art director, it's probably fine. The culture around hair dye I've noticed here is darker and more subdued dye in winter and brighter dyes in summer. Keep your hair seasonable.

The 91 corridor has better pizza

Hush. We don't want them. Let me live with my trees in peace

Fuck the rail. How about Springfield gets a tidbit of economic development instead of having its industries shuttered by Beacon Hill and its citizens given fuck-off payments to steer clear of the capitol.

Springfield doesn't want East-West rail. Boston doesn't need any more power.

>You "need" full-stack coders, but you also need maids, restaurant workers, state and town employees like teachers, etc...

That's why God gave us robots. Don't worry, those people will be mostly irrelevant soon. Just kick back and enjoy the man made horrors beyond your comprehension.

The ruling impacts two murder charges that a logically consistent court would determine to be one.

Tourists spend whatever they want, and the state doesn't care about Tourists that don't go to Boston. Prices need to be low for Bostonians who want to go camping.

Remember, 2/3rds of all votes in MA come from the Boston Metro. Everything the state does is in service of Bostonians. Worcester, WMA, and the entire world only matter when Boston can't agree

That's because in the late 1800s the Swiss built one

Only one of those cars has an engine immobilizer.

To keep outsiders out. They want the sites to be cheap for residents at prices subsidized by outsiders. Same with university tuition