Lord Overpass mess

It was recently reported in The Sun that the Lowell City Council voted to approve several motions, one of which was to “investigate and implement immediate remedial traffic solutions at the Lord Overpass.”

What do we suppose might be wrong at the Lord Overpass?

Even the most inept investigation will show that there are too many vehicles trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

This is no surprise. Four years ago the council, for reasons that defy comprehension, voted unanimously to bury a critical, major traffic artery that used to carry over 20,000 vehicles every day underneath the Lord Overpass. The great majority of those vehicles were left with no choice other than to join the slow-motion parade of cars that were already crawling on the overburdened overpass.

The best remedial solution? Call the excavators and get the dump trucks back there, haul the dirt back out, re-open Thorndike Street, and remove over 20,000 cars per day down off the Lord Overpass. The burial was a boneheaded idea to begin with. No one’s looking to say, “I told you so.” All we need over there — for a change — is some common sense.

— J.F. Dacey

Lowell

Video surveillance registry

Recently, the City Council approved a motion for the city manager to investigate creating a registry of residents, business owners and others who have video surveillance systems. The stated purpose of this registry would be to aid the Lowell Police Department with criminal investigations.

I call on the city manager to engage the community during her investigation to determine whether this registry is something that the community itself desires.

If other communities are any indication, such a registry would be advertised as “voluntary.” But that would not be the case.

After surveillance camera owners raise their hands to be included in a registry, they could be compelled by the courts through subpoenas to turn over their video data.

Doing so will not be voluntary.

Furthermore, creating such a registry may result in inequitable police surveillance of certain neighborhoods. Additionally, we should also be concerned with the pace of technological advancement in artificial intelligence and how this technology is being used.

For example, Ring (the video doorbell company) has on its staff an engineer whose job it is to work on facial recognition.

That may sound like a good idea to some, but facial recognition software suffers from higher error rates when attempting to identify people of color.

The last thing Lowell should do is encourage the use of racially biased, discriminatory surveillance software.

This summer, thousands marched in the streets asking for change — including a seat at the table when considering how the police interact with the community.

Engaging with the community on the question of surveillance would be an important first step.

— Eileen Morrison

Lowell