Wordle this: Roads that allow space for bikes and buses are safer
(Graphic: Marc Levy)
There was a great Twitter thread recently about the conspiracy theories overtaking Wordle following its acquisition by The New York Times last month. As soon as the Times inked a seven-figure deal to buy the puzzle from its British creator, people began complaining. Many worried the paper would put the daily Wordle behind its paywall; the company has said it won’t. Others feared that the Times – the liberal elites’ “paper of record” – would make Wordle harder. And when some people struggled more than usual to solve a new Wordle, word on the street was that the Times had erected a vocabulary paywall by adding a bunch of obscure words. It was a textbook case of confirmation bias: The highbrow Times had ruined a perfectly good thing, just as predicted. To quiet the conspiracists, the editors explained that the only change they made to the creator’s original word list was to remove a handful of words they felt might be too difficult. (“Aroma” replaced “agora,” for example.)
Some people still don’t believe them, though, because they are predisposed to dislike the Times, and it felt true to assume the worst. “Aroma” – familiar but perhaps not an everyday word – didn’t pass their smell test. And if “cynic” wasn’t proof enough of the liberal conspiracy afoot, then how about “caulk”? (Two recent Wordle solutions.)
The Wordle drama (See what I did there? “Drama” is a five-letter word) brought to mind the “bike wars” raging in Cambridge. I use that term reluctantly. “Bike wars” has been the subject line of an especially acrimonious, long-running thread on a neighborhood listserv. With an actual war brewing in Ukraine, it is past time for the group to retire this toxic thread and to reestablish some norms.
Sadly, I think that those posting flyers in store windows and whipping up others to “save” Massachusetts Avenue, mom-and-pop stores and gluten-free apple pie from impending disaster have fallen prey to fears, misinformation and confirmation bias. Their sky-is-falling rhetoric, which asserts that adding protected bike lanes and bus priority lanes will destroy the neighborhood, may feel true because it reflects their preconceived notions about the necessity of driving and their preference for the status quo. No reasoning or data will disabuse them of their notion that there will be “devastating” impacts if any on-street parking is removed or relocated. Comrades, the real “war” is over parking – in local politics, parking is the third rail in many debates. It’s gotten to the point where if the sky doesn’t fall when the flex posts and bus priority markings are introduced this spring, they will insist it has. As any good therapist, of which there are many in Cambridge, will tell you, feelings are not facts, and emotions are not truth.
The true impending disasters are the climate crisis and traffic congestion, though the climate crisis poses an existential threat that could make traffic congestion something of a moot point. To avert the climate crisis, we must reduce emissions aggressively from the transportation sector, or our great-grandchildren may need gondolas to shop on Massachusetts Avenue. Most residents are seeking ways to reduce their carbon footprint and are taking action in myriad ways, but some have a blindspot as big as the ones on their SUVs when it comes to changing their attitudes and habits around transportation. Many residents of all ages say they would be willing and able to bike more often, but the lack of a protected network holds them back. The widely supported goal of creating a citywide network of protected bike lanes is why the City Council passed the Cycling Safety Ordinance, and why voters elected a majority of councillors who pledged to support its implementation. The Porter Square section of Massachusetts Avenue where the ordinance requires quick-build protected bike lanes to be added this spring is only about 1,400 feet, and yet it has inspired people to grab their pitchforks.
The same people who would go to the barricades to defend their right to park in the public way complain bitterly about traffic congestion. As the saying goes, if you are in a car complaining about traffic, you are part of the problem. Like it or not, the area’s population is growing, and city streets cannot support the same level of growth in car use. We must transition more people from driving to other modes more of the time, or traffic will continue to go from bad to worse. Many say they would take the bus if service was more reliable. The bus priority lanes proposed as part of the Massachusetts Avenue changes will help. Yes, there are disabled and elderly people who will continue to drive most or all of the time, and some parking should be available for them. Those spaces can be on side streets within a distance no greater than people routinely walk to and from such spaces when they park at shopping centers or malls. Elderly and disabled people, along with many low-income people who can’t afford to own a car, also take the bus and ride bikes, and they would benefit from the proposed changes. Space for loading can be made available in the bus lanes during off-peak hours.
Some business owners’ claims that sales will plummet if on-street parking is altered seem based more on fear than fact. After all, the number of vacant storefronts has been a concern for several years, predating the pandemic and irrespective of parking availability. Supporting local business does not mean one must prioritize maintaining parking over increasing safety for non-drivers. Many places that have become more bike- and pedestrian-friendly have seen economic improvements, including increased customer visits and a more vibrant streetfront. One could even see such improvements to the public spaces and amenities as an opportunity to attract new customers. “People don’t come to a place for the parking, they come for the experience,” planner Jonathan Berk writes. As any good educator, of which there also are many in Cambridge, will tell you, students do best with a growth mindset that regards ideas and challenges as an opportunity to learn and grow. These students say “I can” and persevere, whereas their classmates with fixed mindsets say “I can’t” and give up quickly.
All of the perceived problems are solvable with a growth mindset. The insistence by some that protected bike lanes actually make streets less safe is baseless. Empirical data show that protected bike lanes save the lives of cyclists and can make crossings safer for pedestrians. Data also show that most Cambridge residents do not own cars, and the majority rely on transit, bikes or walking to shop and commute. Most people mix and match these modes. In fact, those who drive exclusively are a minority, especially to shop in transit hubs such as Porter Square. Bike ridership has been steadily increasing over the past decade or so as our streets have incorporated more traffic-calming measures including both painted and protected bike lanes.
Cambridge is a young city, but many older people bike and more say they would if they felt safer. Massachusetts Avenue is consistently cited as the street that even experienced urban cyclists are the most nervous to ride on. And crossing four lanes of traffic can be nerve-wracking for pedestrians, too. Two people – a cyclist and a pedestrian – have been killed by drivers in Porter Square since 2016. The next fatal crash will not be an “accident” if the status quo is allowed to remain.
No one is talking about closing Massachusetts Avenue to cars; loyal customers will still find their way there by car and a variety of other modes, just as they do now. With the addition of protected bike lanes and bus priority lanes, more will arrive by bike and bus. Hopefully, no one else will have to die to prove the status quo is unsustainable in every way.
Here come all the coordinated “pro” bike lanes are amazing pieces – 3 in the last weeks…let’s repeat most everyone is for protected bike lanes.
The quick midnight build in north Cambridge was and is a mess – stop denying it. The design could have been from a school child it’s become a complete joke.
For example, the bus lane now has cars, delivery trucks parked in it for up to 15minutes. Ask yourself – what is the bus to do ? Sit for 10-15min waiting for paint to load or a faster Phil’s haircut. No, buses are now swerving into the “auto” lane.
People wanted to be involved and this was shoved down their throat and this alienated a lot of people. Congratulations.
“…have fallen prey to fears, misinformation and confirmation bias” No Jan, they have fallen prey to reality. It is you who is suffering from confirmation bias. Most of the businesses in N. Mass Ave are down 40 to 70%. Most had no notice that parking was going to be removed so I don’t see how they could have developed confirmation bias that then spread to all their customers. Seems a bit far-fetched don’t you think? Here is the story of just one business owner: He started his business 20 years ago. He barely survived after Covid mandates closed his business for four months. After they re-opened, he got a rent increase. Then he got a two-day notice from the city that they were removing all parking. He lost two employees the first week because there was no parking. They commuted from Stoneham and Topsfield. These two employees brought in 25% of their revenue. Total revenue is down by 50% Their intern paid over $400 in tickets. She received so many tickets that the city threatened to confiscate her car. She commuted an hour to get to work. It wasn’t worth it for her to come anymore. 15% of revenue came from stop-ins, people who were driving by and noticed the shop. After driving around the neighborhood 6-7 times looking for parking, customers call and ask where they can park. Answer: nowhere. 90% of their customers come from outside of Cambridge. They cannot survive without parking. About 50% are vets, many disabled. They also have blind and limited mobility customers. The owner works 7 days/week even though many days there is only one customer. He used to have a waitlist. To make up for the loss of customers, he has gone through all of his personal and business savings. He has a wife and three children to support. Bike advocates say they can make up for the loss of revenue. This is a pipe dream. In his 20 years in business, he has only had two customers arrive by bike.
On North Mass Ave, the councilors have been working hard to improve that area by adding a considerable number of new metered side street spaces, working to get better signage for the loading zone, and helping change the city policy so that passenger cars can park in loading zones for 30 minutes. The city council has also passed several policy orders to improve and diversify public engagement and measure potential business impacts. I hope that all of these changes help to reduce small business impacts.
We should also acknowledge that while it is smart to dedicate some amount of public space for customers who would otherwise find it challenging to commute to small businesses from far away, many businesses rely on a customer base which is largely local, many who have Cambridge parking stickers. Business intercepts of actual retail customers also show that only a minority of customers arrive by car (https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/Porter_NMassAve/portersquarelowermassavedistrictassessment_2020.pdf). Of course, that primarily depends on the business. A tattoo shop might rely more on customers who would travel far (and who would also probably figure out how to park before going home). But most people who get haircuts or want to pick up baked goods are likely coming from nearby. Sure, there might be a few customers who notably travel from Cape Cod or New Hampshire, but of course the large majority of people do not travel more than a ten minutes for either of those things.
Perhaps more importantly, Cambridge public space on major roads is precious because there are many important uses for it. The primary goal of a road like Mass Ave is to move people safely and efficiently, not just to park vehicles for one type of road user. So that does mean that the location and number of parking spaces may need to change, and that we may need to rethink some existing uses. For example, it is just no longer appropriate or feasible to provide plentiful free parking spaces on roads like Mass Ave for business owners and staff. That will probably impact some people who choose to live in Stoneham or Topsfield and work in Cambridge, and there will be short term impacts from that. Employees in the rest of Cambridge face the same struggle, nobody who works in Harvard, Central, or Kendall Square gets free parking, and for good reason, we just can’t squeeze that many cars on our roads and there is no place to store them all.
But regarding what this op-ed is actually addressing, it’s the rollout questions surrounding the fears and misinformation surrounding Porter Square and the rest of Mass Ave. I think Jan is right that there is rampant misinformation and fear. Some of it is sadly willful misinformation, coming from a few vocal folks (some who are quite self interested, but readily accuse others of the same). Some of it is unfounded fear, and of course, some of it is legitimate fear, as there are real changes that need to happen to grow and become a better and healthier city.
We also have to be realistic and honest: we are just getting through the fourth wave of the pandemic, compounded by winter. Many businesses throughout the city have been facing enormous downturns in December and January, and are just starting to recover. Their business impacts are not due to bike lanes, and we have to be careful to decouple actual impacts from road changes from the broader business challenges that everyone has been dealing with. I (and all of my neighbors) do wish for a speedy recovery, thriving businesses, and balanced implementations. But frankly, I am often not hearing the same from the other side.
For the record, I am just as scared of the climate crisis as Jan Devereux is. I’m a vegan, fly less than once a year, use public transportation, bikes and my scooter wherever possible, have solar panels, a heat pump, electric car. As a small business owner who has never earned more than $100K, I have donated many times that amount to climate causes, including founding the Climate Action Liaison Coalition, which ultimately merged into Climate XChange.
As I have written elsewhere on this website, the Cambridge Bike Safety pledge tied the hands of the City Council in ways that are unacceptable.
On October 3, 2021, one of the City Council candidates who did not sign the pledge wrote:
“As a first-time candidate who hopes to amplify the voices of folks underrepresented in local government, I cannot sign any pledge to do the will of one particular group regardless of the concerns of other stakeholders.”
For those who are not familiar with the pledge, the Mass Ave section reads:
“Mass Ave is the most important street in Cambridge and needs protected bike lanes as soon as possible. I will not vote for any proposal that delays protected bike lanes on Mass Ave beyond the timeline of the rest of the ordinance. This should be done in a way that supports transit, improves pedestrian safety, protects the tree canopy, and enhances the business environment.”
The pledge doesn’t mention bus lanes. I wish it did. I also wish that the Cycling Safety Ordinance page on the City of Cambridge’s website mentioned them. It doesn’t.
It is absurd that we are trying to cram car lanes, bus lanes and bike lanes onto Mass Ave. Not to mention overhead MBTA wires that impose further restrictions on street design. Why can’t the bike lanes be moved to Oxford Street between Harvard Square and Porter at least until the catenary lines are removed? Because that would require amending the cycling ordinance, which the Council has pledged not to do.
I repeat: Trying to cram passenger cars, separated bike lanes and designated bus lanes onto one major artery will turn North Mass Ave into a dead zone. At least we’ll still have Mass Ave in Arlington, where small businesses will still exist. For now.
Moving bike lanes on to Oxford St. won’t work, for the reasons described here: https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/11/11/why-biking-cant-just-happen-on-side-streets/
(Basically: it’s not a direct route, so many people won’t use it. It’s still dangerous, so you’d have to remove lots of parking to make it safe… which again people would fight.)
Also worth noting a teenager got hit by a car riding their bike by the Baldwin on Oxford St. a few months ago, broke their arm I believe. It also needs work if it’s going to be a safe bike route.
Actually, rereading this: “Why can’t the bike lanes be moved to Oxford Street between Harvard Square and Porter at least until the catenary lines are removed? Because that would require amending the cycling ordinance, which the Council has pledged not to do.” I think you may be misunderstanding the Porter Square project scope.
The Porter Square project is from Beech St to Roseland/Arlington St. It’s a quickbuild, and needs to be done by spring. But that’s a very small stretch.
The majority of Porter Square to Harvard stretch of Mass Ave will NOT be quickbuild, and does NOT have a fixed schedule at the moment. The city council will approve a schedule this spring, and it will be likely based on removing median and catenary. Exactly what you want, sounds like?
Hear hear! We should continue to seek community input as appropriate, but we should not slow our momentum creating a safe and inclusive cycling network across Cambridge.
I have been following all the write-ups and arguments for and against the changes to Mass Ave for creating separated bike lanes. The acrimony and hyperbole on both sides has clouded judgment and stunted real communication.
I have lived here since 1990.
There’s no question something has to change for the sake of the environment and livability.
I have only 2 issues with the upcoming changes:
1) Bicyclists will NEVER be safe so long as they do not obey traffic laws as automobiles and trucks and busses MUST. Why is there NO provision for bicycle safety training? Certification of riders and registration of cyclists? Enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists?
Lest those reading this think I do not have an understanding of the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. I was hit by a car crossing in a pedestrian crosswalk many years ago. A good friend was struck and killed crossing at the intersection of Mass Ave and Somerville Ave in 2016.
2) My other issue is the way this has been handled in communicating with the residents of Cambridge. We are the taxpayers who fund the Traffic Dept and pay the salaries of everyone who works there and the
City Councillors, too.
I own a 1 bedroom rental condo on Dana Street. Somehow, the city is able to send me my property tax bill twice a year and my car excise tax bill once a year and every time there is a zoning change request from an abutter. Despite all that, I received no notice of the changes in mid-Cambridge until I arrived at my rental unit to meet new tenants and found parking meters installed in front of the building.
When I called the Traffic Dept to ask why I had received no notice, I was told they had posted notices at the building. Since I receive my mail at my address in Porter Sq
where I live, I was never notified.
How was this allowing input from those affected?
I wanted to make a few comments in reply to the comments above, mostly in regard to matters of fact, but also a little commentary.
From prc: “For example, the bus lane now has cars, delivery trucks parked in it for up to 15minutes. Ask yourself – what is the bus to do? Sit for 10-15min waiting for paint to load or a faster Phil’s haircut. No, buses are now swerving into the “auto” lane.” The southbound bus lane is only operational during rush hour (6-9am), so the bus is permitted and in fact expected to use the auto lane as needed outside of rush hour.
From Master: “Most [businesses on North Mass Ave] had no notice that parking was going to be removed. … [A specific business owner] got a two-day notice from the city that they were removing all parking.” The city webpage on the Mass Ave from Dudley to Alewife Brook Parkway documents outreach specifically to all business owners in the project area on October 12 and 13, 2021. Implementation began November 8. This documented outreach to business owners is in addition to prior outreach in early September to businesses that the city stated it did, as well as the general community meetings for this project which were heavily attended, including by some business owners, and were widely advertised including through flyers posted along the sidewalk throughout the study area. I suppose it’s possible that any particular business owner may have been unaware despite all this outreach, but it is incorrect to say that the city only gave two-day notice for the project.
From Master: “In his 20 years in business, he has only had two customers arrive by bike.” This is very implausible. The City of Cambridge’s 2020 Porter Square Commercial District Assessment (https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/Porter_NMassAve/portersquarelowermassavedistrictassessment_2020.pdf) reports on a customer intercept survey the City conducted in 2019 that asked how customers usually get to Porter Square, including the shopping areas on Mass Ave a bit north and south of it. 16% of shoppers reported getting to Porter Square by bike, while 33% reported getting there by car, an approximately 2:1 ratio. Let’s assume the shop Master is describing has historically only received 10 customers per day on average (hopefully an underestimate!), and that it is correct that 90% of this business’s customers are from outside Cambridge, such that only 1 customer from Cambridge arrives per day. That’s 3650 customers per year (365 of whom are from Cambridge) or 73000 customers total over a 20 year period (7300 of whom are from Cambridge). Thus, 2 bicyclists in 20 years would imply a 73000:2 ratio of drivers to bicyclists. If we limit only to customers who are Cambridge residents, it would be 7300:2. Either way, given the 2:1 ratio of drivers to bicyclists among shoppers in the nearby Porter Square intercept survey conducted by the City, a 73000:2 (or even a 7300:2) ratio of drivers to bicyclists for this business is completely implausible. Note, research suggests that store owners often underestimate the number of people who walk, bike, or take the bus to their shops and overestimate the number of people who arrive by car (for example, https://phys.org/news/2021-07-shoppers-mobility-habits-retailers-overestimate.html).
From Master: “After driving around the neighborhood 6-7 times looking for parking, customers call and ask where they can park. Answer: nowhere.” “About 50% are vets, many disabled. They also have blind and limited mobility customers.” Non-resident stop-in customers who are driving could park in newly metered spaces on side streets and disabled customers who are driving could additionally use the three disability parking spaces that were added to the North Mass Ave project area, which had none previously.
Master also raises the issue of employee parking. N Mass Ave was a rare exception in previously having unregulated parking available. Thus, previously, employees could park all day for free directly on Mass Ave. This is an unusual situation. There is very little unregulated parking available in Cambridge and other projects have also been removing it when changes to the street are made (e.g., unregulated parking on River Street is being removed as part of the sewer separation project there). Thus, most Cambridge employers need to arrange parking for their employees who drive, e.g., by renting spots for employees in a private lot. There are private lots along N Mass Ave and at least one business owner has in fact rented spots (in that case, for customers). Renting spots is an added expense but not an expense comparable to losing a long-term employee.
There is no doubt that many local businesses across Cambridge have unfortunately been suffering this winter, especially due to the omicron surge. I am skeptical that the bike lane installations in Cambridge have widely harmed business because tons of rigorous academic research shows that installation of protected bike lanes has a neutral to positive impact on the business environment, even when parking is removed, and across a wide range of urban environments (including places that have similar or lower density and similar or less transit access than N Mass Ave). Some of this is summarized here: https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/09/22/bike-lanes-and-local-business-the-economic-impact/
Cyclists are among a local business’s most loyal customers since their travel range is necessarily more limited. A person with a car can more easily choose to patronize a competitor’s business, especially at a mall or big box store, since the distance to travel is less of a decision factor, and because arterial roads near big box stores present dangers for cyclists but speed up travel for drivers. In contrast, for shorter distances, any additional time it takes to bike rather than drive is often made up in not having to spend time looking for parking. It has always been hard to park in many places in Cambridge, even before bike lanes were added.
Nevertheless, no two businesses are exactly the same, I support making changes to address each business’ needs. For example, if more metered parking spaces on side streets are needed, we should add them. If employee parking is needed, I would support giving parking permits to affected businesses that would allow their employees to park in resident parking within the nearby area similar to visitor passes.
Susan L feels the bike safety pledge unduly ties elected officials’ hands. I strongly disagree. Pledges and campaign promises are exactly how voters across the country routinely hold their elected officials accountable, and they are entirely appropriate. As Cambridge Bike Safety said last fall: “[A pledge] allows voters to learn before they vote what candidates will actually do when elected. Pledges are central to an open and democratic process because they commit candidates to stay true to the wishes of those who elected them. President Barack Obama, for example, was deeply committed to civility, openness, and responsible governance, and made no fewer than 533 promises while campaigning (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/?ruling=true).”
Thanks to Susan and Moxxie who state much better than I can my position on the bike lanes that have been shoehorned into Mass Ave
Frank Kramer
Can someone please explain why there is a need to prioritize the parking needs of a private business that claims to get 90% of it’s business from outside Cambridge over the lives of people trying to commute in the most eco-friendly way possible?
Times change, and business must change with it. Just as there are no longer a plethora of Blacksmiths around Boston and Cambridge perhaps consider that this may not be a suitable place for a business that is so dependent on parking for it’s survival.
If the needs of a business are so incompatible with the environment that has changed around it then doesn’t it make sense for that business to relocate rather than hold back progress?
How can we expect and hope for larger change unless we can initiate it here? Or should we keep pretending like it is only tailpipes outside Cambridge that have an effect on the environment and ours just smell like roses?
Climate change is real. We have needed to address it for decades and have not. This needs to happen now. Yes some businesses may be affected, but a vast majority of them will not. The businesses that no longer suit the environment will do better elsewhere and be replaced by other small businesses that are a better fit for the neighborhood and space around them.
And most importantly we will have less dead commuters on our streets.
Will Inman Square ever be finished? It’s a shame that the change in Inman Sq is not finished. It’s been years!! Get it done! City obviously dosent care!!!