Lots of cities do offer free/cheap skating in their parks, so it’s really not unheard of. Millennium park skating in Chicago has no admission fee and it’s far more popular than frog pond.

I recommend skating in Kendall where it is much more reasonably priced. $6 admission for adults and $1 for kids. Rentals are a little pricy for adults but cheaper for kids. I picked up some free skates on the side of the road for myself or you could Craigslist some pretty easily.

https://www.skatekendall.com/admissionandrates

When it gets really cold:

• Ice skating on Spy Pond or at the Public Garden

When it snows a lot:

• take a quiet walk at night, the snow keeps it bright outside and it's very cozy
• take the ski train to Wachusett
• take the commuter rail to a small town without worrying about road conditions

It tends to improve over time after a new project is installed. But, people do still do it in other areas, usually trying to avoid convoluted multistage turns or other lackluster infrastructure. Personally it doesn't really bother me as it doesn't seem to actually present any danger.

Ahh, you're right, I just never noticed the residential nearby. But still, adding more residential will only increase the activity level wherever it is built.

Go to r/Comcast_Xfinity and follow the procedure there to get intro rates. It worked for me about a month ago. Also the city council voted for municipal internet, but it was blocked/delayed by the previous city manager. There is a meeting next week where the city will hopefully begin moving forward with it.

The city does develop and maintain a large portfolio of housing and that is usually for significantly lower incomes. In addition they subsidize private projects that commit to lower incomes. Recently linkage fees on non residential projects were increased to help fund more of these projects.

University park is entirely commercial space, no residential, so after 5 it’s a ghost town. These will be entirely residential with potential retail at the bottom floor. These projects will only increase pedestrian activity and will bring new customers to support local businesses.

Good news! The plans for the redesign call for 12-14ft with 2ft buffers on both sides.

Car insurance in Mass is on the lower side of average when compared to other states. My insurance was cut in half when I moved here from Michigan.

If there is no incentive to do so, then nothing will change. So why not pass this?

Passed last night!

They are not right to honk. Right turn on red is always optional. Maybe don’t drive if you don’t know the law.

Mass Ave and Churchill in North Cambridge was the first one I found out about. The left turn arrow phase doesn't activate unless someone is actually turning.

Cambridge is installing video sensors at many intersections now. Wherever they pop up, waiting time is greatly reduced.

We have stats available to say this would help everyone. See DC, NYC, and Montreal. Compliance for no turn on red is much higher than compliance for stopping/yielding to pedestrians before a turn on red.

Kind of, but OP is hoping for quite a bit of prerequisite knowledge on the mod.

They're making a joke about the moderator.

The T is absolutely underfunded. If you think otherwise you have zero relevant knowledge to contribute anything of use to discussions around the T.

Car free households are overwhelmingly lower income. The higher your income, the more likely you are to own more cars and drive them more.

There's no loophole with this. Developers will now be free to build or not build parking. That will lower development costs, but not make new development cheap. It's a good step towards more affordable construction(way more zoning relief is still needed) and just better overall urban design.

Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most U.S. cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking. If parking is provided on-site for free or at a reduced price (typically, $100 per month), then households appear to take advantage of this amenity. In contrast, households without access to on-site parking are more likely to forgo car ownership altogether.

There’s tons of research on parking minimums that show that they increase car ownership, increase traffic, massively increase costs, prevent transit oriented development, produce less pleasing buildings, reduce green space, etc. parking minimums should be abolished.

Every mandated parking spot leads to a new car added to Cambridge. More cars in Cambridge leads to more vehicle miles traveled which increases danger to cyclists. The data is 100% on the side of reducing parking minimums = fewer cars and lower home prices.