Porter Square will get ‘quick-build’ bike lanes after idea to add it to larger project is defeated
Modes of transportation swirl in 2018 around a “ghost bike” indicating a dead bicyclist in Porter Square. (Photo: Marc Levy)
An attempt to delay the “quick build” of bike lanes through Porter Square by up to four years failed Monday on a City Council vote of 6-3. The majority of councillors, in opposition, pointed to the lives that could be saved with safer cycling infrastructure, while councillors who brought forward the order said that replacing parking spaces with bike lanes meant the death of businesses.
A second order that could have delayed and constrained the design and installation of Massachusetts Avenue bike lanes – by making their construction contingent on the removal of a median strip and overhead trolley wires – was also easily rejected, on a 7-2 vote.
Finally, in a related issue delayed from a meeting two weeks ago that made up a third vote, councillors voted 8-1 to formalize the $55 million plan to install protected bike lanes along four particularly difficult stretches of Massachusetts Avenue known as the MassAve4.
In the first of the night’s defeated orders, the Porter Square work would have been added to the MassAve4 and waited for more complicated “partial build” bike lane construction instead of quick build, which usually includes repainted lines and flex posts that physically separate cyclists from other traffic.
By waiting for a partial build with the median and overhead catenary wires gone, up to half of Massachusetts Avenue parking between Porter and Harvard squares may be saved, while without it all or nearly all of the parking would have been eliminated. Within Porter Square itself, going to a partial build would have saved 17 parking spaces on the avenue out of the current 34; a quick build will eliminate all, with councillors and staff promising to look for ways to mitigate the loss.
“Porter Square, like everywhere else, has Amazon to fight, has Covid, and now if this plan goes forward, we’re going to lose on-street parking,” councillor Dennis Carlone said. “It’s called suicide. Unintended suicide.”
But the $2 million quick build is intended to be adjustable, and it can also be undone easily for a later partial build, Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department head Joe Barr said.
“Poor stepchild of Porter Square”
The new policy orders introduced by councillors Paul Toner, E. Denise Simmons and Carlone threw the debate on bike lanes into a higher gear after extensive debate of the quick-build bike lanes in Porter Square in March, when the council took an unusual step: instructing Traffic, Parking & Transportation to break the Cycling Safety Ordinance by delaying the installation of quick-build bike lanes in Porter Square until the fall, at the latest, to allow more time for community outreach and engagement.
In breaking with his election pledge to follow the ordinance, Carlone said Monday that he had come to oppose seeing Porter Square torn up a second time when more permanent bike infrastructure is eventually installed, especially when so many other sections of the city were getting full-build bike lanes. “The only area that is not is the poor stepchild of Porter Square,” he said.
A potential bright spot at the meeting came from city engineer Kathy Watkins, who suggested that efforts to encourage fast removal of the Porter Square catenary wires by the MBTA were working. “I’ve had extremely positive conversations in terms of getting the right people at the T very focused on this issue,” Watkins said. “The conversations we’re having are about this summer. So this is not looking at a five-year plan.” The city wants rapid removal of the rest of the catenary system to follow; Toner repeated a suggestion Monday that the city do it and be reimbursed by the state.
Bike lanes through Porter will be done “this construction season, which means sometime this fall at the latest,” Barr told councillors March 7.
Telegraphed votes
Outrage over the idea of delaying protected bike lanes in Porter Square within the bike safety community was palpable over the weekend. “I have supported every single study, postponement and funding request. I wanted to show that we needed bike lanes but we’re acting in good faith to find the best solution. This is a bridge too far. Enough is enough. I’m done acting like every compromise is not enough,” councillor Azeem tweeted. He expanded on the thought at the Monday meeting.
On Sunday, the Cambridge Bike Safety group released a statement calling the current status of Porter Square an “urgent safety situation that requires immediate quick-build action.” The group expressed concern over the “entirely backward policy proposal” that would prevent city staff from beginning, designing or installing bike lanes until the catenary wires are removed by the MBTA.
Ahead of Monday’s meeting, city councillors took to Twitter to telegraph their views on bike lanes. “Delaying bike lane implementation is choosing unsafe conditions for cyclists. As a city we can’t continue to make that choice,” tweeted vice mayor Alanna Mallon. Toner, on the other hand, sought to defend his policy orders, saying “Installation [of bike lanes] should not begin until the wires are down. The lack of trust in our city government among residents and businesses in this stretch is palpable.”
Reaction on the council
The council meeting was well attended, with more than 150 residents commenting on the bike lanes. As in recent weeks, the comments were largely divided and reflected a continued growth of disagreement in the community over the issue. “I can’t really think of an issue that I have seen so equally divided,” said councillor Marc McGovern, noting the tension in the room.
Councillors in support of the MassAve4 plans and against the two policy orders were clearly in the majority. “I am frustrated by all of this,” councillor Quinton Zondervan vented. “We’re already agreeing to allow a longer timeline to mitigate some parking effects, and yet we’re being told that is not good enough, and we need further delays to make sure the wires come down.”
For many councillors, the issue came down to safety. “This isn’t about pledges, it’s not about politics, it’s about safety. Tonight and every time I will vote for safety,” Mallon said.
“I can’t hold my breath for the next four years hoping that someone doesn’t get hurt. I can’t support delaying an unsafe intersection. I do pledge to do everything I can to mitigate parking loss,” McGovern added, summing up his thinking that the vote came down to risking bicyclists’ lives or saving 17 parking spaces. (Carlone saw it differently: “It is not 17 parking spaces, it is seven storefronts – seven businesses that will be dead,” Carlone said. “And there are two restaurants that want to open up who have spoken to a number of us that are not going to move forward if there is no parking in Porter Square.”)
Councillor Patty Nolan, who has become a swing voter on the bike infrastructure issue in recent months, decided ultimately to reject the two policy orders. “My vision for the city is to be a model. If we delay this and if we don’t move forward, it will be very problematic and very challenging for us to be a model,” she said. “What’s best for the city is for us to move forward with the current cycling ordinance.”
Locking in the votes
In the end, Simmons was the lone dissenter in the third vote, going against the $55 million plan for the MassAve4 partial reconstruction. Simmons, Carlone and Toner voted for their first policy order; Simmons and Toner were in favor of the second, but Carlone voted against despite his cosponsorship. Carlone couldn’t be reached immediately after the meeting, which stretched past 11 p.m. after starting with nearly three hours of public comment.
Councillors locked in their decisions, taking votes against allowing reconsideration. This enacts the orders immediately instead of waiting for them to become permanent Wednesday, which prevents councillors on the winning side from changing their minds and bringing the issues back to be argued again.
The battle over bike lanes is far from over, though. The next community meeting for plans for Porter Square is at 6 p.m. Tuesday and can be accessed here.
This post was updated April 28, 2022, to correct the order of votes represented in the graphics.
Is anyone surprised? Well maybe that Nolan didn’t have the courage to join Carlone, Simmons and Toner.
No one is “against” protected bike lanes. The implementation is akin to closing the public schools for a year and replacing with zoom school – then asking why is enrollment down 3yrs in a row all while private schools in Cambridge remained / offered in person learning. Sigh
PS might as well get the bids sent out to the consultants as to the small business vacancy rates. Nice work.
I think the graphic is incorrect as to Carlone’s vote on the two policy orders; I believe that he ended up supporting PO #3 (MassAve4 should wait for wires to come down), and opposing PO #6 (Porter Square should wait for wires to come down). (The order of the graphics in the document is #6 followed by #3.)
What solutions if any have the Council proposed to help prop up effected businesses? You kind of have to ignore the sound byte-ish comments of the Council as last eve it seemed a bit of a race to the bottom. However the Mayor did say she wants to support struggling businesses so I assume there are lots of ideas on the table. So…what are they?
Paul Toner wasting everyone’s time again to save a few minutes on his car commute home.
The city of Cambridge studied the parking issue and concluded that the loss of parking spots would have little impact on local businesses. Studies of the impact of bike lanes in other cities have shown that bike lanes can increase retail sales by increasing “foot” traffic.
Keep in mind that many people moving around Cambridge don’t have cars.
Drivers may have to walk an extra block or two. But it will make our streets safer. Totally worth it.
Frank did the City provide a link or any access to that impact report? My understanding was that they asked for one a few weeks ago but it was never done. The comments have been mostly anecdotal relative to impact with some saying no impact at all to other saying its going to be the end of days. Maybe the streets will be safer … maybe they will not. A lot of folks have been playing loosey-goosey with the data. However it was pretty obvious that bikes would win … I’ve just heard the Mayor and Vice Mayor talk about how much they love local businesses and are going to support them but I’ve not heard of any plan or ideas on the table to do that.
Wait, FrankD, are you suggesting that Cambridge businesses will have to survive on the so called ‘foot traffic” ? So those n Belmont, Medford, Arlington….all the surrounding towns that require cars to come into the city are pretty much out of the loop? That’s a lot of pressure to put on Cambridge citizens.
The good thing is that there is a picture of everyone and how they voted. So let’s see who votes for whom, next election cycle and what it is the good people of this city really want!!!
It is a truly sad commentary on how Cambridge is run. Instead of going through established procedure to amend Municipal Ordinance, if there is one, “the council took an unusual step: instructing Traffic, Parking & Transportation to break the Cycling Safety Ordinance.” And the City Manager “broke” the Ordinance by reporting that the Porter Square Project will not meet its completion deadline.
Last night, we lost a golden opportunity to finally do something right by merging PO#3 into PO#6 and asking the CM to rework the MassAve4 (which would become MassAve5 with added Porter Square) timeline in such a way to work in parallel with removing the catenary system and to include “language that may be needed to adjust and update the Cycling Safety Ordinance to reflect” new changes “while keeping the overall time frame of the ordinance.”
As a retired system engineer, I know with proper planning and coordination, systematic, cohesive plan could be developed and implemented in a timely fashion that would benefit all stakeholders if we were only bold enough to work together with long term goal in mind.
Correct Patrick the reason you haven’t seen anything is because there aren’t any details to help support small businesses.
I’m all for bike lanes implemented correctly. What happened in n cam is NOT a model of success by any measure but so what bring it straight thru Porter – good grief. It’s called doubling down.
It is obvious to the casual observer it’s not going to help small local cos. Just push more of us to Amazon etc. ugh.
Most of the City Council has clearly shown that they’re only concerned with satisfying the 5% of the City who bicycle – and whose lobby made campaign contributions. The small businesses, restaurants, home offices, elderly, and disabled don’t matter enough. The area in North Cambridge where parking has been removed has been a nightmare–backed up traffic, business losses. It was possible to work out a compromise that would have benefited everyone – but they just couldn’t be bothered.
I’m saying that everywhere that bike lanes have been installed, studies have shown either a positive impact on business or at worst a neutral effect. You can look up these studies yourself. Easily found. In some neighborhoods in NYC, for example, retail sales went up by 50% after bike lanes. They attract more people to a neighborhood.
It is important to note that the majority of the people moving and shopping around Cambridge do *not* use cars.
The City of Cambridge did an impact study. Somerville did two impact studies, one in 2017 and another in 2019. They all came to the same conclusion: Removing parking spots in favor of bike lanes would have a minimal impact on business.
Most importantly, bike lanes save lives by making our streets safer. Bike lanes have been shown to reduce fatalities by up to 75%. Those are lives saved. Are parking spots worth lives?
This was a multi-year process that extended over two election cycles. 7 of 9 Cambridge City Council members ran on the bike lane platform. They were elected because they promised to have bike lanes installed.
Polls show that the majority of Cambridge residents are pro-bike lane.
The people have spoken.
Joyce, the City Councilors only care about 5% of the city? Not according to polls.
The City has conducted surveys. In 2018, Cambridge asked residents: Would you like to see the city install more protected bike lanes?
64% of online respondents and 60% of telephone respondents were in agreement, with 51 and 46% in “total agreement”. Only 26% were opposed.
According to former Mayor Joe Curtatone, “Every time we improved bike access to a city square, local business picked up. Every. Time.” (But that’s some other town so probably it’s not relevant to Cambridge).
https://twitter.com/JoeCurtatone/status/1505341476250992640
Have a car and live in Cambridge?
Move out of Cambridge to a next door community that has reasonable policies and never shop in Cambridge again.
A win/win for everyone.
“The City of Cambridge did an impact study. Somerville did two impact studies, one in 2017 and another in 2019. They all came to the same conclusion: Removing parking spots in favor of bike lanes would have a minimal impact on business.”
Spoiler: No such impact study exists.
I would think such confidence would be founded in something other than … nothing.
“7 of 9 Cambridge City Council members ran on the bike lane platform. They were elected because they promised to have bike lanes installed.”
7 of the 9 councilors were absolutely not elected solely because of bike lanes. You guys can absolutely prove your points without making things up.
Itamar …please tell me you’ve got something better to quote than a Joe Curtatone tweet.
Its ok though. If you’re right no harm no foul. If you’re wrong a handful of non-amazon businesses will close and who really cares? The retail spots will convert to res like they did for the most part on Western Ave and life goes on.
Totally wrong. PatrickWBarrett.
You say that 7/9 council members did not run a bike lane platform? Well, here is what city council member Burhan Azeem said in a tweet last night:
“City council & the constituency has, again and again, affirmed their support for cycling safety ordinance. It passed last term. There was an election where 7/9 Councillors *ran explicitly on the policy and they won*.”
So PatrickWBarrett, are you saying that this council member does not what platform he ran on? What campaign promises he and his colleagues made? He says he and 6 other members ran explicitly on a bike lane policy. But you say no, they didn’t?????
And PatrickWBarrett, here is an impact study that you said does not exist:
MassAve4 Impacts Analysis
https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/policiesordinancesandplans/cyclingsafetyordinance/massave4impactsanalysis
And here is an article. In the reference section, you will see links to other impact studies:
Bike Lanes and Local Business: The Economic Impact
|https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/09/22/bike-lanes-and-local-business-the-economic-impact/
Here is a Somerville traffic impact study:
https://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/city-of-somerville-tis-standards.pdf
So, I guess they do exist, PatrickWBarrett.
Frank D as the system eng and Joyce from above pointed out it was the perfect time to merge remove the wires median and do it right.
Instead it’s the quick destruction that n cam is stuck dealing with. Empty bus lanes police lights flashing to prevent any drive from using the bus lane fast Phil sitting in his chair out front. Just as covid is slowing down the brain trust rams this through.
Sam, sadly you are correct. Sad sad times ahead for wokeville.
FrankD, I am not sure that the citizens that now oppose what is happening were as motivated to go out and vote as those that were for it. Now that they have seen and experienced what it’s all about, you can bet there will be different results next election cycle. I have friends on Mount Vernon street that did not vote but are now outraged that there will be parking meters on their street that they are vowing to vote next year, along with their friends and their friends’ friends and so on and so on. This has awakened a sleeping beast!
PRC: Council Member Marc McGovern addressed that issue directly when he said:
“I can’t hold my breath for the next four years hoping that someone doesn’t get hurt. I can’t support delaying an unsafe intersection.”
He also wrote in a statement:
” (In 2015) Amanda Phillips was doored and killed….I never again wanted to sit across the table from a family that lost a loved one due to our delay.
Porter Square brought up that same issue for me. I simply could not take an action that would keep such a dangerous intersection unsafe.”
To me, it sounds like his heart and values are in the right place.
Sorry about Fast Phil.
Well, good for him. Let’s wait and see how he fares next election. Only time will tell!
BTW I’ve been doored myself, right in front of the Evergood Market, it wasn’t fun. Luckily I was not killed, but I am always on the lookout as I ride along AND I have trained myself, as a driver, to NEVER open my door without looking to see if there is a cyclist coming along. So why is such training not part of this bicycle safety push????
FrankD – thank you for the link to MassAve4 Impact Study. But have you read it? To me, impact study on businesses means conducting interviews with them to learn what they think will be the consequences of MassAve4 plan on their businesses. Most likely their answer would be we will go bankrupt if we lose parking.
Take a look at impact analysis for
Rindge Ave to Cogswell Ave – SB, for example. Land use includes Retail, Pre-School or Grade School. Bank and Large Multi-Unit Residential.
But Curb Access impact simply states “The existing parking spaces and/or loading zones in this area would have to be removed.
There are disability parking spaces in this segment. The ordinance allows us to keep disability parking next to the curb for short stretches. If we install quick-build separated bike lanes in this location, we will determine the best location for disability parking, including evaluating opportunities to relocate the spaces onto side streets.”
Further, for “Curb Access on Side Streets,
Evaluation needed – This section contains businesses that may have loading needs that we would work to accommodate by providing the opportunity to conduct loading activities on side streets.”
Do you call this business impact study?
yckcambridgeday – You are welcome.
Yes, I have read it.
Do a Google search on the phrase “do bike lanes hurt business?”.
Tell me what you find.
Me? I’m with Marc McGovern. Porter Square is the most dangerous intersection in Cambridge. Saving lives should be a priority.
I hope that after your Google search, you’ll agree.
Well in a few yrs as leases expire there won’t be a reason to go out anymore other than to surrounding towns/areas. The small locally owned business are were a huge part of what made Cambridge great.
I guess sam is correct again.
With all due respect the Google search do bike lanes hurt business? Lol that is assuming the bike lanes were properly designed and installed.
Go ask some of the n cam small businesses if their business has increased or decreased after the quick destruction as I have. Umm no it’s fallen off a cliff. Whatever.
One year from now, people will be like “what’s the big deal? The bike lanes aren’t so bad after all”.
You know why I say that? Because that is what has happened in other places. You’ll see.
PRC – Who says that bike lanes were not properly designed and installed? Some random people on the internet who don’t like bike lanes?
LOL.
There is no bicycle safety issue in Cambridge! Cambridge has been consistently called the most bike-friendly city in the country. There have been 4 bicycle traffic incidents in 5 ½ years north of Porter Square and no ambulances called – See CPD Crash data base. The 2016 fatality in Porter Square would not have been prevented by protected bike lanes (see Middlesex County DA decision).
How about safety for pedestrians, especially older one like me: I am five time more likely to die in an accident in Cambridge than these entitled bicyclists.
While Cambridge is gearing up for the unnecessary Quick Build, large cities like San Diego and Albuquerque and eliminating bike lanes in parts of their cities.
The elitist, ageist and arrogant bicycle lobby won at last night’s City Council meeting, where, in response to their semi-hysterical rhetoric—“ Our children will die, we will die, if you don’t build the bike lanes immediately”—Councillors voted down the proposal to slow it down until impact studies were done. It was amazing that they all essentially said the same thing – somebody did a lot of organizing work in advance.
This very expensive project will completely mess up Porter Square, force an overwhelming number of cars in the shopping center lot, devastate our Mass. Ave. Mom and Pop stores and push traffic into our residential streets, eliminating our permit parking during the day.
This is a $44 million project – imagine that money going to hard-working teachers or helping to give boost to women and minority owned Cambridge businesses who are struggling to get traction post pandemic or housing people experiencing homelessness.
There is no economic impact study; there is no traffic study. I have requested them several times and have gotten NO response from anyone in city government
As for fighting climate change, I have my doubts.There are many more effective ways to address climate change than bike lanes. And how about registration fees for bicycles to help pay for this?
Economic impact? Can you imagine 74-year-old me on a bicycle struggling with two gallons of paint from City Paint or trying to get home warm takeout from the Greek Corner? Ugly.
Thank you Frank and though you’ve stated otherwise my guess is you haven’t read it. If so what do you make of the comment “evaluation needed” at every instance where loading impacts on side streets are mentioned in relation to businesses? My favorite part of the study is where they used an image of a bike line me and a few guys personally built to build out patios for restaurants in 2020. We used those cheap water filled orange barriers. Good times.
lblout – You are in luck because bike lanes make streets safer for pedestrians (and drivers too). Here is a study that shows that:
Cycling lanes reduce fatalities for all road users, study shows
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm
The slow-down proposal that was voted down was NOT to wait for the impact studies. It was to wait for a different design that would have saved only 17 parking spots.
In fact, the impact studies were done. You can find them online. I am sorry that no one returned your emails.
Many studies have shown that bike and bus lanes do help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Maybe your doubts come from not knowing about these studies. You can find them online.
Many studies have shown that eliminating parking for bike/bus lanes does not hurt business, they typically help business. They bring more people into a neighborhood. More people = more business. You can also find these studies online.
It is also important to note that surveys show that 2/3 of Cambridge shoppers do *not* arrive by car. Just because you drive doesn’t mean everyone does.
In fact, the Cambridge impact study (which does exist) has shown the number of drivers has been decreasing over the years. By contrast, the number of people who walk, bike, and use mass transit has been increasing.
In short, drivers are a shrinking minority. But we should continue to prioritize their needs over making our streets safer?
Bike registration fees? Everyone pays for the roads via taxes, even the people who don’t drive. But only cyclists should pay for the bike lanes?
Bike lanes don’t mean that you *have* to get your paint or falafel via bike. No one is saying that you have to use the bike lanes. But the more people who bike (or bus) the better it is for everyone, including drivers.
Yes lblout we haven’t even banned smoking a leading cause of death. Or mandated the vaccine to city employees.
You don’t need to go far Frankd to see what a kindergartner design and implementation looks like, just drive up mass ave to n Cambridge.
Arrows pointing in various directions, rush hour traffic explosion, flimsy loading zone parking signs IN the bus lane making the bus lane non functional, handicap parking gone – can go on but seems you think it’s worked out great. Happy for you!!!
I don’t suppose you are the Frank from the steakhouse!? Frank’s has survived world wars etc from 1938. Let’s see if they survive just 5 more years! Im sure the bicyclists from all over greater Boston will be parked eating their Sizzler’s.
And people wonder why a red wave is sweeping the country.
Progressive = Regressive = Sigh
PRC – That’s, like, your opinion. I look at the bike lanes and see something different.
That is why I trust science and research. Lots of research on bike lanes, if you care to look. I also trust expertise. I’m willing to bet that the Cambridge city planners and engineers know a little more about the topic than random people.
If Cambridge is like anywhere else, bike lanes will help, not harm, business.
For example, a DOT study of bike lanes in NYC showed that they increased local retail sales by 48% or more. That is just one example. There are many more. Look up the studies yourself.
Business owners consistently overestimate the percentage of their customers who arrive by car, especially in this neighborhood.
Cambridge did a lengthy study and found that most of those parking spaces don’t actually do much for the local businesses. They concluded that improving access for non-car transportation modes would be more beneficial to more people.
Cambridge will learn what other places have learned. Bike (and bus) lanes bring more people to a neighborhood. Most importantly, they greatly reduce injuries and death.
Also, keep in mind that polls show that 65% of Cambridge residents favor bike lanes and only 26% are opposed.
Yes, indeed, we will see.
Now that the biking group got its lanes, will they be forced to follow the rules of the road? Or they are exempt from road and traffic rules?
Here’s a thought. Why not make Bus and bike lanes share the way they do it on 34th street in Manhattan??
And lblout, you called it. I agree with everything you say.
Drivers have “had” their roads for decades. When will they start following the rules? Are they exempt?
Cyclists violate traffic law no more than drivers, new data shows
https://whyy.org/articles/cyclists-violate-traffic-law-no-more-than-drivers-new-data-shows/
Pedestrian Deaths Spike in U.S. as Reckless Driving Surges
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/pedestrian-deaths-pandemic.html
I see drivers running through lights that have turned red every day. No, sorry, every light.
FrankD. when drivers dont follow rules, with enforcement, they get fined. With law of numbers, you escape a few, but get fined when caught. can drivers drive more carefully. you bet.
Are there any rules enforced for bikers? Are they ever held accountable?
@eastcamb
This is so dumb. Of course cyclists get fined. Of course it’s illegal for cyclists to run red lights. I’ve seen people get tickets many times. This is a stupid argument.
It doesn’t change the fact that biking is still dangerous for those that follow the laws.
@eastcamb. What are you talking about? Drivers get fined? Where? In what city?
I see drivers running lights constantly, they roll through stop signs and turn from side streets without looking for pedestrians. They ignore the crosswalks. They speed. I almost never see a traffic stop.
If drivers behave because they get fined why do so many break the law? And how do you explain this?
Pedestrian Deaths Spike in U.S. as Reckless Driving Surges
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/pedestrian-deaths-pandemic.html
Everybody should follow the rules. But singling out cyclists and ignoring the bad behavior of drivers (who are operating heavy machinery that does more damage), well that is nonsense. Pretty much all pedestrian deaths are due to cars, not bicycles.
And as @concernedcitizen said, cyclists are in danger when they follow the laws.
Frank D. Please send me the link to “on line impact studies.” I haven’t been able to find any. Not interested in generic impact studies – they are no good. We need to know the economic and traffic impacts on our neighborhoods and businesses of THIS DESIGN. These don’t exist as far as I know and I do my homework. [email protected]. Thanks.
Let’s all take a deep breath and relax. It’s time to put this manufactured controversy to bed. There are lots of studies that show that bike lanes in other cities bring lots of benefits without putting all local stores out of business. At public meetings and at the polls, Cambridge residents overwhelmingly support separated bike lanes.
As Councilor Carlone said a couple of years ago, “Increased bicycle use is most appropriate in our city, which is the fourth-densest city in the country. This emerging way of travel promotes personal health, a cleaner environment, and even greater retail sales.” [from https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/04/09/cambridge-becomes-first-u-s-city-to-make-protected-bike-lanes-mandatory/%5D
Corrected link for my comment above: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/04/09/cambridge-becomes-first-u-s-city-to-make-protected-bike-lanes-mandatory/
San Diego is talking about dismantling its bike lanes. Oped: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2022/04/08/its-time-to-admit-the-truth-and-scale-back-the-bike-lanes-in-san-diego/
The story sounds really really familiar: https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2021/12/05/battle-over-30th-street-bike-lanes-pits-businesses-residents-against-san-diegos-climate-goals/
James Zall, I agree. This really got blown crazily out of proportion. The latest plans released last night are literally only losing 7 parking spaces in all of the Porter Sq intersection out of 35, and they hope to make some more back once they remove the catenary wires.
Some amount of change is okay, and the sky is not going to fall.
lblout, San Diego is not planning to remove any lanes. As you mentioned, this is an op-ed of somebody who is running for city council who does not like the outcome of the project. The good news is that we already have dramatically higher ridership than San Diego, and ours is growing.
People are so polarized right now, but we need to take a deep breath and accept the outcome. There have now been many votes on this, the most recent has 8-1 in favor of doing the balanced partial build on the Mass Ave 4 project. There will be a protected bike lane network on Mass Ave.
We are investing 40 million dollars to preserve parking spaces on Mass Ave, so there will be enough parking for retail.
Great news! I am proud of what the Cambridge City Council has achieved with this policy move. I drive, bike, and live in Cambridge. Only as a cyclist do I feel one incident from serious injury or death. I’ve personally had a close call experience due to no fault by either party. Infrastructure should be designed that leaves a margin of error for human mistakes.
It is a much larger issue than just parking. The design of it (no studies needed as we have all seen the quick build in n cam) has exploded rush hour auto traffic in the very small section that was completed.
Everyone said oh it will take a few months to get used to and it will get better.
Well guess what with removing a lane on each side it’s pushed auto traffic onto side streets and driven up sitting idle like it’s an ongoing construction project every rush hour. Friends that have moved to Arlington (due to the chaotic public school closures) said last night at scoop n scootery “sadly we have no need or desire to ever come back over the town line”. “We see traffic backed up into Arlington every morning past the cvs and that is just from a tiny quick build section”.
It’s disappointing to witness spending over 40m on a temporary solution that benefits such a small single digit % but clearly very powerful contingent.
On with the wide body bike lanes on both sides and painted bus lanes to sit empty for the overwhelmingly majority of a 24hr day!
See this opinion column from Adam Auster, an Arlington Town Meeting member who has long written about transportation issues: https://wordonstreet.wordpress.com/2022/04/28/cambridge-reaffirms-ambitious-street-plan/#comment-21842
@prc, the city announced that as part of the Mass Ave 4, they are going to remove the median up on N. Mass Ave, so they can stripe and treat the entire area north of Porter uniformly. I agree that the discussion should be broader than parking, and that it will give an opportunity to shrink the bike lanes to standard size, and re-use that space along with the median space to use the road space more efficiently.
The small % of people commute by bike is really misleading though — many people hear 7% and think “wow why are we doing this for so few people?” But among Cambridge residents who commute, 29% take transit, 28% drive a car, 25% walk, and 7% bike. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQMPGZDXoAIWP31?format=jpg&name=large
The 98′ public way on Mass Ave does not come close to reflecting those current proportions, even with today’s ridership in a dangerous network, which is holding people back from doing it. So if we want to have the “only 7% of people bike” discussion, we ought to have the uncomfortable discussion that “more people take transit than drive, why are we spending so much on car space and not having more bus lanes?”
Chris – I have working 👀 I can see the # of cars buses and bikes.
To see the auto lane jammed, the bus lane with a delivery truck parked in it the bus merging into the car lane and maybe maybe not a bicyclist in the wide body lane is a little hard to swallow daily.
Everyone has to make choices in life and as amazing as Cambridge is/was let’s see if public school attendance keeps dropping and families keep leaving: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/americans-moving-urban-counties-141924038.html
I respect the initiative but not the communication or implementation.
@prc, I think we both believe it is a worthy goal to improve efficiency and safety for people who use aren’t in cars on Mass Ave. This necessarily challenges the 1950s car-centric culture, which is dangerous, inequitable, and environmentally unfriendly. It is also unworkable to keep the status quo with the job and population growth we’ve had in Cambridge (love it or hate it). There are a lot of long-term benefits to doing this, even for people who drive and walk, but it is not always an easy transition.
The changes on North Mass Ave certainly could have been improved through better staging and communication. Frankly, I think the city heard those concerns loud and clear, and has improved on both of those going forward. Still, even with these two most recent projects, they are incredibly different and more balanced, public engagement is much higher and reception is much better, yet we have some neighbors who are already sure they won’t work. I know you are more thoughtful about this, and would probably agree that the Mass Ave 4 and Porter intersection projects are both much more balanced than the prior changes on North Mass Ave.
Cities throughout the world that have pulled this off have had the exact same debates and challenges. The evolution doesn’t happen overnight. In some of the most prominent examples (e.g., Amsterdam, Copenhagen) car traffic and parking demand was much worse before implementation, and it took years and years to change it.
Some people (like your friends in Arlington) may be glad to say ‘good riddance’ and move out, and that is their prerogative. Cities do evolve over time, and it is reasonable for people to decide that they want more of this or that it doesn’t work for them. But hopefully we can keep improving the process and plans, and people can help come up with improvements/suggestions rather than debating whether we should do them.