Candidates should avoid single-issue pledges that make political discourse more divisive
As a relative newcomer to Cambridge, I am dismayed at how divisive the political discourse in Cambridge can be. Instead of coming together as a community to celebrate the progress we’ve made and collaborate on efforts to make the city even better, some people are quick to characterize problems as “crises” and those who are perceived to be blocking solutions as “selfish.”
I fear that the Cambridge Bike Safety pledge for City Council candidates is only making the problem worse. Politicians who take the pledge promise that they will not vote for any proposal that weakens or delays the Cycling Safety Ordinance, especially as it pertains to bike lane construction on Massachusetts Avenue. (“With the installation of protected bike lanes comes a fast-moving issue for council race,” Oct. 1.)
The city has made it clear that current implementation plans for the avenue have a significant negative impact on others, including residents who own cars and local businesses. In an effort to implement this ordinance as quickly as possible, Cambridge Bike Safety has exerted heavy political pressure on council candidates. The majority have now signed the pledge.
The council we need and deserve should have a mandate to balance the interests of residents and small businesses as well as cyclists. Please join with me in asking current and future Cambridge elected officials to push back against pledges that subject their vote to the control of single-issue advocacy groups such as Cambridge Bike Safety.
Susan Labandibar, Forest Street
The (overwhelming) majority of the candidates support the Cambridge Bike Safety pledge because people dying is bad, and doing what we can to have fewer people die is good.
We absolutely can come together to improve the outcomes in our city. But we don’t need to push for things to move slower in order to do that: instead, we need to push for the city do more at once; to build more capacity for adapting more quickly as we roll out crucial safety tools. We don’t need to ask for the city to do less; we need to ask them to do more. Monitoring bike lanes, finding hotspots for unsafe interactions, expanding metered parking and loading zones to fit needs: these are all things we need. But these are not precursors to building safe streets: they must be done in parallel, by growing our imagination and responding to the realities on the ground as we evolve our streets. Because we know that the alternative is more deaths.
How many dead does it take before something is a crisis? In the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders, the moment that the cyanide put in Tylenol was identified as the cause of 7 recent deaths, the city literally drove the streets in loudspeakers requesting folks stop taking Tylenol. Within *one week* of the first death, 31 million Tylenol bottles were recalled nationwide, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The city made a commitment to build bike lanes as they rebuilt roads… and then another person died, because it hadn’t happened fast enough. Accelerating the steps we are taking to save lives on the streets of our city is a natural reaction to that.
I understand that some would rather that candidates *don’t* commit to these changes: after all, the changes may cause discomfort, they may cause frustration, and they will absolutely require many people to change their behaviors. Change is uncomfortable.
But the reality is that we know what happens if we take the slow route to these changes: More people are seriously injured, and more people die.
I appreciate that the candidates have staked their positions out clearly here. I hope that those who are concerned here can join with those of us who want to work towards safer, more accessible streets in finding the best way to move forward, because none of us want to see more blood on the streets.
As a cyclist who is also a resident, I don’t think we need to balance *between* “residents” and “cyclists”. People who ride bikes are residents too. We all have the same goal: a better, safer city that we can be proud to live in… and stay alive in.
We have to find a solution that works for everyone. Bikes are important and need to be safe, and Pedestrians, MBTA Riders and people who commute by car deserve the same courtesy.
The section of Mass Ave from Alewife to Dudley has a beautiful off road bike path that connects Arlington Center with Alewife and Davis Square. I walk it all the time. Yes, it’s not as direct as staying on Mass Ave, but it is a very safe option. Mass Ave, also has the painted bike lane that has decreased crashes, and severity of accidents for cyclists that want a more direct route.
Most people in Cambridge were not aware of the Bicycle Safety Ordinance being amended in Oct of 2020, in the middle of a pandemic to include the installation of 25 miles of separated bike lanes across the entire city, including the whole length of Mass Ave. The pledge closes the conversation, before people even knew it was being talked about.
All the business and residents I’ve talked to are just asking to be part of the process, so we can have a better design. A better design is possible, please look at SaveMassAve.com and MassAveforAll.com for more information.
Businesses value and appreciate their customers that come by bike. Residents want everyone to be safe. We need a design that works for everyone, and that means listening to everyone. We have the chance to do this, let’s do it right. Let’s construct a bike lane that works for all.