Why cycling safety is a divisive topic in cambridge
Late last year, on Massachusetts Avenue near the Arlington line, a city quick-build project added nine blocks of separated bicycle lanes, created bus lanes and removed curbside parking, using paint, bollards and signs. The cycle lanes represent about 2 percent of the total new lanes required by the Cambridge Cycling Safety Ordinance.
There was a storm of protest to this project from North Cambridge residents and business owners. In response, the City Council voted in January to create a Cycling Safety Ordinance Implementation Advisory Committee to address community and business concerns about cycle lane projects.
At that council meeting, there were scores of public comments on both sides of the cycle lane divide. One commenter lamented the deep disagreements that the current process and outcomes have fostered among segments of the Cambridge community, another the rage of residents, drivers and walkers against cyclists that is obvious on Nextdoor. One made a plea for solutions that will dial down the anger.
The controversy about the North Massachusetts Avenue cycle lane is neither new nor surprising. The same issues and divisions surfaced in 2018 after the first quick-build cycle lanes were installed on Cambridge Street, Brattle Street and Massachusetts Avenue near the Common. At that time the city manager and mayor jointly proposed a Cambridge Bicycle Safety Project Review Committee on how to improve the engagement process for future projects, and the city hired a consultant to interview community members, staff and city councillors who had participated in reviewing these projects.
Almost all of those interviewed reported that participants had been mistreated, intimidated, called names or even physically assaulted for their views on bicycle infrastructure, parking or cars and were subjected to personal attacks and demonization.
A year earlier, in 2017, when the first quick-build projects were started, memories of two fatal cycle crashes on Cambridge Street were fresh, and there were demands for the city to do something to prevent more young cyclists from dying grisly, public deaths. This prompted the city to make implementation of existing long-term plans for cycling infrastructure a priority, and officials described the projects as safety improvements.
This new, simple framing of complex infrastructure projects has shaped the later discourse in public meetings and media. In this context, as the city’s consultant reported, any dissent was seen as anti-safety. If you objected to the removal of parking spaces, voiced concern about the loss of street access or questioned other impacts or even the design of the project, your opinion could be dismissed as anti-bike, endangering cyclists lives or worse.
Then in 2019 and 2020, the City Council institutionalized the novel branding of cycle infrastructure in the Cycling Safety Ordinance. The sole effect of this law is to set detailed deadlines for the city to create a network of 26.2 miles of separated cycle lanes by 2026. It is about cycling safety in only a narrow and unusual sense: It is about infrastructure and does not address other obvious measures to improve cycling safety. Also, it has other important aims, to reduce motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle ownership by Cambridge residents.
So far this ordinance has led to piecemeal, neighborhood-by-neighborhood installation and review of new sections of cycle lanes. The process in North Cambridge and elsewhere has been less than transparent and flawed by poor communication with affected residents and businesses. The city manager is now forming an advisory group to meet the need identified by the city’s consultant three years ago:
These projects are considered by most stakeholders to be high impact of the community and therefore deserving of a meaningful level of engagement. The chief finding of this assessment is that efforts to inform and involve the public and the city’s quick-build projects to date have mostly fallen short of these expectations.
Future projects, including Massachusetts Avenue from North Cambridge to Harvard Square; Cambridge Street east of Inman Square; and Broadway from Quincy Street to Hampshire Street seem certain to have greater impacts and be more complex than the already completed projects, and there are high expectations for meaningful community engagement in decisions.
As a commenter at the Jan. 10 City Council meeting put it, democracy requires that everyone must have a voice.
John Pitkin has been active in Cambridge civic affairs since 1971 and served as chair of the Cambridge Transportation Forum, which was created in 1972 by the City Council and city manager to coordinate citizen participation in transportation planning.
Democracy does require that everyone has a voice – and we did in November, when we overwhelmingly elected a city council that is in favor of safe, multimodal transit. A few loud and angry car owners shouldn’t stop that. Cars already have their lanes, vastly more than bicycles. Once as much space is dedicated to bicycle lanes as car lanes we can revisit this alleged discrimination against car owners that “Save Mass Ave” seems to feel.
Lobbyists were alive and well as the new slate of councilors were ushered in. Most were elected based on ideological support, not necessarily practicality. It would be helpful if bike safety advocates also insist on bikers follow rules that keep drivers safe as well. A comment by a city employee recently stated that up to 99% of bike accidents were caused by bikers. Drivers can’t see those weaving in between parked cars or shooting across red-lighted intersections etc. And there is no way of identifying them. So it would make sense to get bikes licensed to track dangerous infractions. But so far, I see mostly entitlement, including riding on the sidewalks.
And just because issues are questioned doesn’t mean people are against the principle. “If you are questioning then you are against”. That’s ridiculous. As with most changes, a more granular study needs to be taken into consideration. As it stands, this special interest group mutes voices through fear and intimidation.
How about bicyclists register their bicycles annually:
Lights
Proper reflectors
Helmets
Riding test rules of the road
Whatever else necessary
Might make it safer and easier for all.
While we’re making cyclists follow the rules of the road, how about the drivers? E.g.
– Delivery and Uber drivers stopping in the bike lane, or the regular travel lane;
– Cell phone use while driving;
– Exceeding the speed limit;
– Entering an intersection when the light is yellow;
– Not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
– Not stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks.
etc, etc, etc.
Can we get the folks who complain about cyclist behavior attest that they never break any rule of the road?
If less than thirty percent of Cambridge residents voted in the past election for City Councilors, how can these same councilors claim that the majority of residents are in favor of the cyclist lobby? How many of the cyclist lobbyists are Cambridge residents (just as most drivers in North Cambridge at rush hour are not Cambridge residents?)
The only equitable transportation is public transportation, allowing for those unable to cycle or afford car ownership to transport themselves safely, yet the City Councilors avail themselves to the most vocal group of the two forms of transport that are exclusionary and not necessarily virtuous.
The short answer is everyone sucks.
Some cyclists don’t stop at stop signs…neither do some drivers.
Sone bicyclists go the wrong way down streets.
Some cars speed.
Some cyclists ride the wrong way down one way streets.
No one is innocent and both sides cry about it.
Politics as usual.
If someone is arguing for keeping parking in exclusion of a separated bike lane, they are clearly taking a position of “anti-safety.” One might attempt to whitewash that position as “pro-business,” but the tradeoff they’re arguing for is clear.
Cambridge is a modern, progressive city. As such, we have many people who live and work here who would like safe and comfortable travel alternatives to driving alone in a car. Of course, making that a reality supports the physical health and mental wellbeing of the people, reduces air and noise pollution, and combats climate change.
Unfortunately, even here in Cambridge, nearly all of the public roadways are still devoted to cars – between active travel lanes and parking. Developing a connected network of protected bike infrastructure, and using bus-only lanes on the busiest streets, is key to moving city transportation in the right direction. And we need to sacrifice significant amounts of on-street parking to make this happen.
This is a major transformation, and there is little people hate more than change – especially change they personally did not ask for. So I am not surprised at the opposition we’re hearing – both here, and around the city in general. I don’t think that anyone engaged in this discussion is out to get anyone else.
However, I think most of the people who are concerned about the bike lanes will get used to them in time.
>>If less than thirty percent of Cambridge residents voted in the past election for City Councilors, how can these same councilors claim that the majority of residents are in favor of the cyclist lobby?
That’s easy– the councilors are referring to the people who actually vote. Those are the citizens who matter to politicians, after all.
Cycling is a divisive topic in Cambridge because a significant amount of residents believe cheap, abundant car storage should take priority over bicycle safety.
Yep, people have a voice through city council elections and a series of public meetings. Glad that Cambridge is getting serious on building bike, bus, and pedestrian infrastructure to take back the overweight emphasis on car transportation. I certainly don’t think the current pace is anywhere near fast enough, and will advocate for accelerating the transformation through voting and participating in public comment.