Imagine Harvard Square on a busy afternoon. Instead of gridlock on Mass. Ave., you see pedestrians filling the street. Instead of car engines rumbling and honking, live music from a local band carries across the square. Instead of summer heat reflected from asphalt, you sit back under lush trees, sipping coffee as a band plays.
These are only some of the joys car-free spaces can bring. The benefits go much further.
Public squares are important community places. In an “epidemic of loneliness” where fewer Americans have close friendships, we need to create spaces for people to meet. Rather than letting cars dominate the square, we should host events, performances, and programming to connect the community. Imagine having space for Cambridge Public Library pop-up events and more local farmers selling fresh produce.
Data from the EU Urban Mobility Observatory shows that car-free city centers can benefit from an increase in pedestrian visitors. Pedestrians are more likely to stop and wander in the shops, and they tend to spend more.
Building infrastructure that encourages walking, cycling and using public transport will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Cambridge should see this as an opportunity to reach its climate goals and move towards climate neutrality by 2050.
Streets without cars show significantly reduced noise levels, making it easier to carry on a conversation. Car-free zones also improve air quality and provide additional spaces for trees. Reducing traffic-related air pollution can decrease the risk of lung and heart problems as well as premature death.
Yearly, around 40,000 people in the U.S. die on the road — the casualties would fill Fenway Park. And unfortunately, we regularly see crashes in Harvard Square, many resulting in injuries and some in death.
These deaths and injuries are not inevitable; they are induced by design. In recognition of this, Cambridge adopted a Vision Zero strategy to eliminate all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries in 2016. Imagine this vision becoming reality.
As these serious incidents continue, we have a responsibility to aim higher. Cities around the world have shown us how this can be done. In downtown Washington, D.C., the city redesigned G Street NW passing the National Portrait Gallery by narrowing car lanes and adding a two-way protected bike lane. The result: a 60% reduction in injury crashes. Across the ocean in Ghent, a redesign that created a large pedestrian zone improved air quality and led to greater use of public transport and increased business activity. Then there are the well-publicized city initiatives, such as Open Streets in New York, Barcelona’s superblocks, and the transformation of Paris. These projects provided health benefits, additional green spaces, and places for the community to come together.
The concerns often center around accessibility. Inclusive street design can mitigate accessibility challenges for elderly people or people with disabilities, and exceptions for vehicle access can be granted. Such an ambitious project could also encounter legal challenges. Previous lawsuits challenging the expansions of Cambridge’s bike lanes were dismissed, allowing the city’s transportation plans to proceed.
Important questions about the feasibility and cost of a car-free Harvard Square remain. Given the square’s role as a central transportation node, full pedestrianization requires careful traffic analysis and planning. The city’s $300,000 budget allocation for a Harvard Square pedestrianization study provides an opportunity to move beyond limited interventions and consider a complete car-free zone.
Initiatives such as closing Memorial Drive on Sundays have long been popular, demonstrating how streets can be reclaimed for communities. And close to Harvard Square, the pedestrianization pilot of Bow Street has begun. Such easily implementable, low-cost interventions are an important start for working towards a more permanent transformation. Similarly, based on initial concepts developed through the study process, a car-free Harvard Square could be tested with a temporary installation. This would allow the city to experience the changes in real time, gather feedback, and refine the design before permanent implementation.
Cambridge is leading in education and biotech. Why not imagine it as a city leading in creating vibrant community spaces for people — not just cars?
The writer received a master of public administration degree from the Harvard Kennedy School in May.
This story was updated to reflect that the writer has graduated from the Kennedy School.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Once every 5 years or so a kid blows through and says “hey look at my degree! I’ve got this neat idea for Harvard square”…….the only reason there is “grid lock” in Hah-vuhd squ-ah is because of the traffic changes already done. Great get rid of the traffic on Mass ave. Get the grid lock somewhere else. And how have all these changes improved the fate of businesses so far? Yup that public transit that works so well in the summer will be even better in the dead of winter.
Harvard Square, and cities generally, work best as places for people, not cars. Cars bring gridlock, pollution, and crashes. Every serious urban planning effort now points toward fewer cars and more space for walking, biking, and transit.
Making Harvard Square car-free would unlock its potential as a safer, more vibrant public space, building on successful shared streets and pilot projects like Winthrop, Palmer, and Bow Street.
We’ve seen in European city centers and in Cambridge’s own shared streets that when you prioritize people, foot traffic and dwell time increase and nearby businesses benefit from visitors who linger and spend. For a district built on cafes, bookstores, and small venues, a comfortable, low-noise public realm is a smart economic strategy, not a luxury.
Reduced car traffic also means fewer injuries, cleaner air, and less chronic noise, all of which are documented public-health gains.
A car-free Harvard Square is a logical next step for Cambridge’s mobility and climate goals, and it would make the square safer, livelier, and more economically resilient for the people who actually use it every day.
What a great idea. Close Brattle from JFK down to Church. Turn JFK one way the other direction until Mt. Auburn to allow cars from Mass Ave to continue through Harvard Square to the river. Brattle Square could be pedestrianized except for one lane by Pete’s, allowing traffic headed to Elliot to go that direction. Allow buses to travel through the closed Brattle section. It would be great.
It’s very sad that a graduate of the Kennedy School would wrote an opinion piece like this.
I’ll presume that the writer has actually walked from the Kennedy School to Harvard Square, but her many proposals show that realism doesn’t seem to be part of her arguments.
And, could we stop with the nonsense that anything Cambridge does re climate change will make any difference. It won’t. Until China and India stop using coal, all of this is just virtue signaling.
Cambridge is a city in a current financial bind, and will be even more so during the next five years. It should be watching every penny to make sure that it is spent on things that are rational, not dreams.
Great idea and long overdue: open Harvard square to people, instead of just cars. By coincidence I just visited Paris and it is amazing how much better a city designed for people feels and works. For naysayers: it is cheaper for city to maintain pedestrian zones than car traffic surfaces. Finally, it is much better for climate to live car free lifestyle. Let’s do it!
The point isn’t to “ban cars” from Cambridge. It’s to stop letting them dominate the city’s best public space. Harvard Square works better when people can walk, linger, dine, and spend time there.
Complaining that this is unrealistic just means resisting change. It doesn’t make sense. Pedestrian zones work in cities all over the world, and the Bow Street pilot shows access doesn’t have to collapse.
Cars make Harvard Square feel like any other street. People make it Harvard Square.
And on climate: no single city solves it alone, but every place has to do its part. Dismissing local action is exactly how a collective problem becomes unsolved. It’s a kind of short-sighted attitude that gets us into a crisis and doesn’t let us get out.
Yes please. Let’s make Harvard Square for people instead of a place to drive through to get somewhere else.
Time for a pilot program that eventually becomes the permanent state
What an idea! One small problem, Cambridge is a city of about 150,000 people and to support the businesses of Harvard Square, Kendall, and other sections of the city, we require the visiting population of sometimes over millions. Tourists, commuters, students, Bostonians, suburbanites aren’t all coming in on bikes or walking (and don’t get me started on the T, we don’t need an 11:30 curfew). When the city accepts that it doesn’t only do business with people who live in Cambridge, that our economic base has very little to do with your kids’ riding their bike to school and you having your needs delivered by truck to your door, then we can talk. Because, at the end of the day, every time you put in another bike lane, you kill small business; you push the haves into a delivery only world, leave no option for repair and service workers; and leave the lower class out of the equation who do not have the time or energy to bike to whole foods daily for one bag of groceries.
Yes please! Why isn’t Cambridge4Trees pushing for removing car lanes, removing parking, designating car-free streets, and then using all of this reclaimed space to increase our tree canopy? Ironically the term “parking” used to refer to green spaces along the street, but then we ripped all of that out for car storage 🥲 (where were the neighborhood groups when you actually needed them)
How does this promote commerce from out of town people? No parking means less vistors.
@ concerned_citizen and @magic may I remind that cars don’t shop Not a single car ever bought something from a local Cambridge business. Ever. People come to stores, restaurants etc. Tourists come to walk and be at some place, not drive through it. Do you want to improve local businesses? Make being there easier, not driving through it.
Removing parking for pedestrians and bike lanes does not hurt local businesses. It helps them.
Cambridge’s economy does not depend on convenient car storage. It depends on people showing up. Across the U.S. and Europe, the evidence is consistent. Safer, more accessible streets for walking, biking, and transit increase foot traffic and *boost* small business revenue.
Most visitors to Cambridge already arrive by transit, not by car, and street space is limited. Allocating more of it to buses and bikes moves far more people per hour than private vehicles. That is not anti-business. It is basic throughput.
The equity argument cuts the other way as well. Lower-income residents are less likely to own cars and more likely to rely on transit, biking, or walking.
Deliveries, trades, and accessibility needs are accommodated through targeted loading zones and curb management. Claims that bike lanes “kill small business” ignore both the data and on-the-ground reality. Vibrant commercial districts are built on density, access, and foot traffic, not on how many cars can be stored at the curb.
And as for the claim that people will have to bike to Whole Foods for grocery trips: Ha. Local grocery stores, including Whole Foods, have parking lots!
I already can walk around Harvard Square without any problem.
The problem is Harvard Square, as the oldest European settlement in the area, is where all the streets converge. Anyone proposing pedestrianizing it should include a map showing which streets will serve the trips that currently go through the Square. Be sure to consider truck deliveries and buses in your analysis. And don’t use Memorial Drive as an alternate since there’s advocacy to close it as well.
The point is that traffic shouldn’t go through Harvard Square. There are plenty of pedestrianized cities across the world that manage to arrange truck deliveries. Let’s not pretend that’s a problem. And yeah, a dedicated bus lane through Harvard Square would be great.