In these days of instant communication over the inter-tubes, people having the interwebs in their pockets, and taking pictures on the digitals, all i had was a bike and a notebook, and a grocery list. That is not to say that the grocery list really mattered. But it does indicate that I had other things to do, namely, make fajitas. This is not about fajitas. This is about the the recently announced resurfacing of Woodrow Wilson Drive.
Talking about municipal public works is boring. This is going to be very boring because of that. Also, i forgot my camera, thus, no pictures to liven the mood. Please forgive me.
Yesterday I saw a JFP (and JFP-Local) tweet about a press conference Mayor Johnson would be holding announcing the resurfacing of Woodrow Wilson Drive. I figured this would be a good chance to go and ask a question or two. Conveniently, I could combine trips and hit the grocery store afterwards, pay attention, this is almost a theme of the post.
I arrived at the corner of Peachtree and Woodrow Willson to see a small clutch of news-peoples, police officers and people of some local significance standing behind some orange traffic barrels by the park. I walked over to the cameras and leant on my bike waiting for Mayor Johnson to arrive at the podium. He announced the work to be done: a resurfacing of Woodrow Wilson, done with assistance from the MDOT Intermodal Connector Program. Work has also been approved on Mill and Pascagoula streets, presumably under the same program. Work had already been approved, and is presumably now to start, on Pearl streets. These are all being done under the guise of improving access to Union Station (which I absolutely and enthusiastically support!).
The details of the resurfacing program are as follows: The contractor is Superior Asphalt. As Woodrow Wilson is an important corridor, the work will be done to minimize disruption. The work will take place on one lane at a time, mostly at night. There will not be any work undertaken during Jackson State or JPS football games at Memorial Stadium or Newell Field, respectively. The work should start “in a week or so” and be done within three months. It is the undersanding of the Mayor that the work will take only 60 working days.
Three news cameras showed for the “turning dirt”: Fox 40, Wlbt 3 and Wapt 16. The Mayor was joined by a representative from Superior Asphalt, the City Council President, a doctor from the hospital across the street and probably somebody else. I think he mentioned that an MDOT representative could not make it.
While the photo op was going on I got to talking with an Officer Brister (im pretty sure thats his name). After opening with the standard “who are you with” we got to talking about the road and pedestrian access. We both had noticed that many people working for the hospital cross the road to get to their cars parked near Murrah. He asked me how the crossing was and said that he thought it looked scary – fast traffic on and off the interstate. I suggested a crosswalk with a warning light was needed but he said it would only make people speed up. We decided that the best option would be a pedestrian controlled red light. He encouraged me to ask the Mayor about any pedestrian accommodation they may have made.
Johnson said that there would be work done on sidewalks and crosswalks along the road. I am not sure if this is new or existing sidewalks. He did indicate that pedestrian facilities were important to development. I overheard him talking to one news man about a new development coming to Jackson. He spoke of a mixed use development where people could “work play and stay in one place” which was the trend of developments nowadays. I think this is fairly exciting for an American city, but i did not catch where this would be. He said that it would bring an estimated $2 million in tax revenue to the City when fully developed. This would be land that did not generate any tax revenue currently. Hopefully this is on a brownfield site, rehabilitating abandoned buildings is far better than paving over valuable, if unruly, greenspace.
Then he got to my real curiosity. I was wondering what sort of study was done on life cycle costs of road surfaces. A resurfacing is just a temporary solution to bad roads. I asked about different paving methods or materials and if they were studied to see if they could extend the life and value of the road. Johnson replied that they are not done on a case by case basis – suggesting alternatives to merely paving were not studied at all – but from an overall standard based on the type of road. He did mention that some alternative road materials (recycled glass or rubber) are used sometimes, but necessarily being used in this case. He did say that the standards they applied were designed to get the most bang for their buck. Without looking more deeply into the issue or studying alternatives more carefully, we may not know if we could get more bang out of that buck.
So. Speaking of road surfaces. I went to the grocery store. I got, among other things, eggs (and was told to wash them by the cashier – not necessary due to USDA regulations on egg producers). I rode my bike home. On these rough streets, my bike and I can absorb most of the smaller bumps, but the larger ones – not so much. Thankfully my eggs all remained intact – but it did get me thinking about the importance of smooth roads. Having less traffic on residential streets would certainly help slow the onset of potholes and ruts. This is one of the further, gestalt issues that should be looked at.
Improving sidewalks is important for pedestrians. Sidewalks, especially along busier roads give people a safe place to walk (ok, you knew that). In my neighborhood, in the evening, it is generally lovely and traffic free, so people walk in the streets everywhere (we also have very few sidewalks). Cyclists should not ride on sidewalks. This is dangerous for pedestrians and does not help raise visibility of cyclists on streets – which is what should be done. The most effective cycling improvements that I have noticed are cycling only streets (cut off to cars) and cycling catches at stop lights – allowing cyclists to filter out of the stopped traffic and get ahead of the cars. Motorists don’t notice cyclists amongst the cars, and its a horrible place to sit in between two cars with engines running. Cycling catches make sure the motorists see the bikes and get to the other side of the lane once the cyclist gets going.
I am a bit torn about bike lanes. They are great when they are respected – cyclists can easily fly through stopped traffic and not worry about a lane changing car not noticing them. the problem, however, is when they are not respected. People park in them, walk in them and drive in them. This is not safe for the cyclist. Additionally, merging back into traffic tends to be harder from a cycle lane than from within traffic. For example: a cycle lane on the right side of a four lane road is very difficult to move from when you need to turn left – if you were in the right lane, this maneuver would only require you to shift to the other side of the lane before changing – but without constant signaling and looking backwards (both unsafe to that extent), this is not easy to do from a bike lane. Integrating with traffic is difficult from segregated lanes. Cyclists need to move with the traffic – no salmoning! Riding on the side of the lane usually allows room for a motorist to squeeze through, and spaces between stopped cars allows the cyclist to race to the head of the queue at a stop light. Its all about maintaining smooth efficient traffic flow.
Perhaps instead of bike lanes, safe routes should be marked. Signs indicating that a road is also a key bike throughway may help. A wavy line of green paint in the lane (where it won’t get worn down by cars) with the occasional bike stencil could indicate to cyclists as well as motorists that that road is ideal for cyclists, and cars should be wary. It is the visibility of cycling that needs to be raised.
I will tag this post ‘local’
August 6, 2009There is a battle going on over what ‘local’ really means. I figured that it would be rather good fun to jump into the fray. So here I go.
I was informed of the rising storm on the fourth of August, sometime in the evening. A twitterific update by one of the JFP’s self referential accounts indicated that ShopLocal had ‘declared war’ and linked to this JFP article with the details. This is what had happened.
A JFP article criticized ShopLocal, the Clarion Ledger and the parent company of both, Gannet, for the misleading use of the word local. ShopLocal responded in a post which tried to belittle the JFP and claim that ShopLocal itself was local. This then led to the twitter post and article which came to my attention.
Its a bit odd, the ShopLocal post. The title asserts that they are local (it actually says that explicitly, “ShopLocal IS Local” you can tell they are serious because even the ‘is’ is capitalised), but their article provides absolutely no support for it. Their article is dedicated to saying that national chains can actually in some sense be considered local (more on that later). They end on the surprisingly weak point that they “support” local retailers. By this, presumably, they mean that they take local retailers money in exchange for advertisement. Support really isn’t the right word, they provide a service, for which they get paid; they are not investing in local businesses, they are quite literally taking their money. I will allow them this massive discrepancy and focus on their two separate claims.
The claim that ShopLocal supports local businesses rests heavily on their definition of local. By clarifying the definitions as they are used in daily parlance, I will disprove both main claims made by ShopLocal. The three definitions of local they provide are absurd. The presence of a business is the only factor in determining if it is local:
It is easy to see that the only consideration is the distance from a certain town in discerning if it is local or not. So presumably this makes every Wal-Mart a local store, because, they are, after all, located in only one place. Actually, this makes every business a local business wherever it is located. Toyota becomes local – they have a dealership here, Nissan even has a plant nearby! This is kind of like HSBC’s marketing slogan “The world’s local bank.” Even though it is based in London, every HSBC branch is a local business, according to ShopLocal. Furthermore, if you have internet banking, HSBC has a presence wherever your computer is. The ‘local’ locations are endless! This means that while I was in Bristol, England, Trustmark National Bank (based in Jackson, MS) had a local presence in England – making it both local and international at the same time!
To define “local” we must look at what people mean when they use the word. The meaning is easily multifaceted. There are considerations like the distance of a business from the reference point (community, city, etc) which ShopLocal understands. People refer to places as local when the management has a local presence, understands the clientele and can respond to community needs and wants. This is roughly having not only local management, but also locally autonomous management. Lastly, the local business model that many people cite comes from a more economic standpoint – a local business is one that invests in the community in which it is based.
In Bristol, my Local (pub) was about a 90 second walk from my house. This is clearly very local in the grand scheme of things. The problem is, there were four other licensed establishments (excluding the restaurants!) which I had to pass in order to reach my Local. Did this make The Cat and Wheel less local than the others? While distance and location play a role, its not the whole story. While being a local business implies that the business is located in the locale in question, the implication is not an equivalence: merely existing in the locale in question does not imply that the business is local.
Pretty much any store, no matter how large the chain, has locally based management. When Brookshires grocery store opened in Jackson, they imported some managers from Texas to run the individual stores. The managers lived and worked in Jackson from that point on. When people talk about a business being locally operated, what they really are talking about is where the autonomy of management lies. Local management can react to the communities needs, desires and tastes; this generally means a management more responsive and dedicated to the community it serves. With a large corporate chain such as Wal-Mart, there is little autonomy of management at the local level. Each store looks the same and sells the same products. Local management is a matter of corporate paperwork, shift scheduling and signing off on deliveries from the corporate truck fleet. Local Wal-Mart management cannot actually manage the store in a way that reflects the community around it. Local products and local tastes are not found in Wal-Mart stores. Sure, they sell Mississippi Blueberries in some stores but that took negotiations by the state Agriculture Commissioner to achieve. On the other end of the management spectrum there are chain stores which really only carry the brand. In the Shell station in Macon, MS, the local management is fairly autonomous from Royal Dutch Shell corporate headquarters in The Hague (click here to listen to that in Dutch). Sure, the station carries only Shell gasoline, and pushes Shell credit cards on you, but they also have a deli which serves up breakfast, lunch and dinner for the town. Besides the branding, the stations management is free to shape the store to local taste, and adapt to feedback from local customers (and yes, I do realize that the management probably does not even live in Macon, and probably manages many other stations, but my point remains). Even with locally responsive/autonomous management, nobody would mistake the Macon Shell for a local chain. If you ask for something at CVS, the management will have to get permission from higher management to carry the item; if you ask for something from Deville, they will pick up the phone and place an order without having to ask permission.

Investment in local communities is what motivates many people to patronize local businesses. Somewhere on the interwebs there is more exact information on the topic, but the general idea is as follows. For every dollar in revenue, a locally owned and operated business will make a larger contribution to the local economy than an out of town chain. Take this example of two fairly identical stores, one a locally owned drug store, the other being an out of town chain. Since each is about the same, their taxes and utilities will be roughly the same. So for a dollar spent in each business, say, ten cents goes to taxes and utilities. We can now ignore that ten cents. Another fifty cents may go to covering the wholesale cost of the product bought – so that goes to the product maker/distributer. Chain stores can often lower this cost as they own distributers or can negotiate better prices from the maker, but thats pretty much irrelevant in this simplistic example. Say another ten cents goes to pay wages of the workers. The remaining thirty cents is profit, this goes to the owner of the company. With a chain, this goes to headquarters, way out of town (or to shareholders worldwide). With a locally owned business, this stays in town, with the owner returning that money to the local economy when they shop, eat out, and donate to charity. So thats the idea, when you shop locally, the local economy does better. Instead of acting like a drain for local dollars, local businesses act as a fountain, supporting businesses all around them. The idea is, this is a good thing. As a bonus, if a business uses local suppliers, those suppliers support the community even more. Why politicians spend their time trying to attract companies to open branches locally is a mystery – encouraging local entrepreneurship would grow the economy and boost tax revenue much faster.
The other day, I used an online service provided by a company called Google. I used this service to find the website of Deville Camera and Video, a locally owned business. So, I guess that ShopLocal would say that Google is supporting local businesses. We cannot really, on anyones definition, debate that Deville is a local company (they even have a big sign when you go in the store that says they are, with proof, and thanks the people who support them – the ones who give them money in exchange for goods). Google has done pretty much what ShopLocal would do: provide me with information on this establishment, including a list of all services they provide. If you aren’t convinced, Google even has the power to suggest local businesses that I have not even heard of when I only know the business type and location (just type in something like “camera shop in jackson, ms”) thus encouraging me to patronize these businesses. Google has done this without taking money from Deville though, so I guess they are just more altruistic in their support of local business. Should we call Google a local business? (What about local.google.com? Its got local in the URL!)
Google is not based in my house, it does not invest in my house and I do not have a say in the searching algorithm. Google is not local. ShopLocal is based in Chicago, the owners and operators are in Chicago and they do not actually support the Jackson community. ShopLocal is in no way local to Jackson. It doesn’t even appear that one could say that the retailers who advertise on their site (see below) could even be considered to be local businesses. There is a difference between having a local address and being a local business.

**UPDATE** Time has an nice article on the buy local point. This is besides all of the stuff in the JFP.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1903632,00.html