The public deserves straight talk from officials about the Cycling Safety Ordinance
The public deserves straight talk from elected and appointed officials. When it comes to the installation of separated bicycle lanes, straight talk is not what we are getting from the City Council or city staff.
Policy decisions inevitably involve tradeoffs. One good decision may foreclose other reasonable options. We all try to make wise decisions for which the benefits exceed the costs. But where have residents of Cambridge been clearly told about the costs of creating separated bicycle and bus lanes? The cost is not only measured in money, although separated lanes will cost tens of millions of dollars.
A recent case in point is the set of slides about the Garden Street Safety Improvement Project presented by city staff to attendees in a public Zoom meeting on May 24, and that may be used again at future meetings scheduled in July and August. The project will install separated bicycle lanes on Garden Street for about six-tenths of a mile, from Huron Avenue to Mason Street. Two slides that are labeled “benefits” include, for example, “reduces crash and injury risk.” Of the 46 slides, none answers or even poses questions like, “What will this design cost?” and “What are the disadvantages of this project?”
In fact, according to the slides, the proposal for separated bike lanes will eliminate at least 93 permitted parking spaces and one loading space. But that number only begins to describe what will be lost.
Not a word is included in the slides about the negative impacts on residents, or on businesses and nonprofits within walking distance of Garden Street. Yet those impacts are significant costs. Where will people who now park on Garden Street park in the future? What will be the impact on neighboring side streets and the people who live or visit there, especially old people? Where will contractors and delivery vehicles park? Are any businesses likely to lose money due to the reduction in parking? Will we see an increase in bicycle-pedestrian accidents as more bikes use Garden Street, especially if the bike lane is bidirectional?
Do members of the City Council believe that making it more difficult to own or operate a car in Cambridge is a benefit of this project? Perhaps so, but that is not identified either as a cost or a benefit.
Public officials and their presentations should inform us when their policies will produce significant changes that many residents will find inconvenient or harmful. Straight talk means explaining both the projected benefits and the associated costs, even for policies as complex and challenging as the Cycling Safety Ordinance.
Perhaps a majority of Cambridge residents agree with the City Council that the benefits of separated bus and bike lanes outweigh the costs; perhaps not. Not to acknowledge the costs, or to pretend they are minor when they are not, will erode trust in government.
Andy Zucker, Winslow Street
@prc If everyone takes your attitude that we shouldn’t do anything because it won’t matter, we truly are doomed.
You need to compare businesses with bike lanes to others without. Or versus revenue with the rest of the city.
That has been done in other places. I posted the links. The result? Bike lanes do not harm and typically help businesses. Review the links I posted.
Seattle? Once again you posted an example with no collateral damage, just complaining. They didn’t even install the bike lanes yet. You are making my point for me.
You haven’t seemed to have read the links I posted. Let me point out that business owners typically change their minds about bike lanes after a while. They come to realize that bike lanes help businesses.
If only people and Seattle (and here) would realize that you are trading short-term concerns for long-term disaster (and other people’s lives now). Sad.
@prc You say bike lanes won’t do anything to address climate change. Yet, I posted links to studies by scientists showing that they can.
Let’s see. Who to believe? Experts or @prc?
Indeed PRC, truly a sad state of affairs in this microcosm of our larger struggling democracy when people will attack each without even reading what people are saying first.
Any major alteration of a main street should require a formal traffic study. Some people have been saying it’s no problem to park just a “little bit” away from the spaces that are slated for removal. Yes there may be spots elsewhere — but they may already be in use by other people. The question is, are there AVAILABLE spots nearby? How many spots are being remoived, who has been using them at what time of day, are there alternatives for that number iof vehicles at the same times of day, etc.
Q99 Horrors! I misattributed @prc’s comments about businesses to you. Oh, the humanity! This must be the fall of civilization.
Stick to the issues.
@karenc Yes. You are absolutely correct.
That is what the City of Cambridge has done. They conducted an impact study. You can find it on their website.
The city has also been working with businesses to mitigate the impact of bike lanes by adding loading zones, metered parking on side streets, etc. After community feedback, they reduced the number of parking spots being removed in Porter Square to only 7 spots. Cambridge has been bending over backward to try to be responsive to the community.
There is a lot of talk about the “bike lobby”. In reality, the majority of Cambridge residents are in favor of bike lanes.
If you attended the public meetings or read what the council members have said or written, you will see they have one motivation, safety.
One of the council members said that he never wants to sit across from the parents of a dead cyclist ever again.
Dare to dream of a different future. It didn’t have to end up this way.
The big idea: should cars be banned from cities?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/11/the-big-idea-should-cars-be-banned-from-cities
Yeah frank, its actually annoying and unhelpful to not respond to what people are saying. And maybe yes, the end of civilization and climate change does in fact depend on us understanding each other and reading carefully.
Participatory democracy requires debate, debate requires careful listening. No need for the sarcasm when I clarified my position (which largely agrees with you except on a few fine points) because you couldn’t be bothered to read it carefully.
The city is trying admirably to fix the Porter situation, and the north mass ave situation. However, the city is removing some resident parking and replacing it with metered parking, which is a net loss of seven total spaces, but a net loss of more residential spaces. Do you understand that?
Likewise, the % of “cambridge drivers” is a different number than slippery ones like “households with cars” or “people commuting to cambridge.” “bike commuters” is different than “daily bike commuters” I’m a daily bike commuter to one of my jobs all summer, but not in the winter. I also don’t commute with my kids, so many of the stats appear misleading.
That may well be a worthwhile sacrifice for both businesses and residents, but the author is calling for transparency and honesty in the debate, not slippery language like “only seven spaces are removed.” Again, I encourage you to read carefully to inform yourself of what the author is saying and the issues are.
I personally think the impact in porter is minimal since most residents there have driveways and dont need as many 24 hour spots, but what the author and other people are asking for is an honest debate is all.
That starts by saying- the city is removing X residential spots and changing them to metered spots, the net loss is 7 but more residential spaces are lost.
Bike lanes and bus lanes (I’m in favor of if you read my posts) appear to help businesses.
However, we don’t know the community impact on community spaces and family preschools, (especially community groups like AA that are by nature anonymous.)
Thats what being honest in a debate means, which is what folks are asking for.
Being honest means saying true things like:
“the city has been subsidizing parking and cars for businesses and residents, and is now doing less of that to subsidize biking. At the same time, they are subsidizing and adding guaranteed free parking for city council members, cops, firefighters, bureaucrats and other municipal employees.”
How do we feel about that? The first part I feel mostly okay about except for impacts on families and disabled folks, the second I think is unacceptable. City employees can walk or bike or MBTA or fight for meters with the rest of us, our customers and our guests.
@q99. I was responding, accurately, to @prc’s comments about business. Sorry that I accidentally typed your handle instead. No need for any pearl-clutching. It was a typo.
You all keep talking about impacts on community spaces and preschools etc. Bike lanes reduce fatalities by 50% or more. Those are lives saves!
What amount of impact is worth people’s lives and safety? There are been hundreds of car-bike accidents in recent years. Serious injuries and deaths.
We shouldn’t fix that because there might be some impact on community spaces and meetings?? What is the debate? How many lives and how much injury are we willing to trade to avoid impact on meetings and soccer games?
As for transparency, there has been numerous public meetings, announcements, notifications, info on the Cambridge website. And an impact study.
If you have a better plan to have bike lanes that saves more parking, inform the city. Maybe you thought of something they haven’t.
BTW, a cyclist was killed in Boston yesterday. A bike lane would have saved them.
https://www.wcvb.com/article/bicyclist-in-boston-injured-in-crash-with-dump-truck-near-symphony-hall/40605712
>2000 people overdosed and died in Massachusetts last year on opiates alone. Walk around Cambridge, you’ll see them dying every day.
Accessible meetings could have saved them.
Q99. Ridiculous. Now you are drawing a link between bike lanes and opioid deaths?
This cyclist would be alive today if they were in a bike lane. Period.
Let’s see where your pretzel logic goes. Bike lanes are in many cities. They have meetings and churches. Let’s see if you can find any report of an opioid death due to parking not being available. I won’t even ask for data. Just a single complaint from anyone, anywhere.
Wow. Just wow.
Dude, read my posts. I’m always saying I want bike lanes. I bike every day in the summer. I’m never saying its clear bike lanes impact business.
What I want are good bike lanes and an honest debate about the potential negative impacts of them, to mitigate the negatives with compromises.
We all know the potential positive impacts. They’ve been reiterated ad infinitum.
I’m saying I want deeper studies on the impact of parking removed in community spaces for people who rely on parking near community spaces so people can make informed choices. Pretended there are no potential downsides is ridiculous and dishonest.
However I think at this point it’s clear you’re just a troll trying to bait and waste my time since you seem to almost deliberately literally misread my posts and pretzel your logic to suggest I and others are opposed to bike lanes. I don’t even know what your agenda is, because you’re making bike and bus advocates like myself look bad and not want to associate with your tired intransigence.
Deaths are ok q99 – just not while riding a bicycle…or else you are a super callous person.
It would save lives if no one left their homes. Um well as a matter of fact that was just tried – yes all cause went down for a short time period imagine that. Now that people are mobile again all cause has significantly increased along with mental health, suicides learning loss Public school unenrollment at historic levels etc etc.
I wouldn’t doubt bike deaths increase with the plastic pylons design . Why? Many reasons – first the design sucks just look at Mickey Mouse for yourself on n mass Ave. Does anyone think it’s good? Really anyone!? besides the design co and the city person (maybe Frankd) that implemented Frankenstein. Bikes will still be on the wrong side of the road, bike still won’t be in the bike lanes and will be in the bus or car lane, plastic pylon doesn’t actually stop a vehicle on and on.
Correct q99 frankd is a city worker or bike lobby person or from the consulting firm hired or some national bike org or from amazing to kill small businesses or just a terrible human being.
When you have no arguments left, you attack the person.
@prc There is no evidence that bike lanes hurt businesses. How many times does this need to be said?
Let’s see if the bike lanes cause more deaths as you say. They won’t. Is your idea that Cambridge designed them to hurt cyclists? Or the city planners are so incompetent that they don’t realize that the bike lanes will kill cyclists?
I have a simpler explanation: You don’t know what you are talking about.
@Q99 I can’t imagine any negative impact on meetings or soccer games that will justify not saving other people’s lives and preventing serious injuries. So what is there to discuss? I guess you and I have a different moral compass.
If either of you has a better plan or design, submit it to the city of Cambridge.
I am a “terrible person” because I agree with and support this:
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/policiesordinancesandplans/visionzero