Part of Garden could go back to two-way traffic, councillors suggest to traffic staff in policy order
A northbound bike lane on Garden Street seen Tuesday, one of a set of changes there made Oct. 28. (Photo: Marc Levy)
Transportation planners are being asked to consider giving Garden Street two-way car traffic again for the five blocks between Bond Street and Huron Avenue, but city councillors emphasized Monday that it was just one of several correctives worth considering since bike lanes were installed there.
Recommendations on that and other proposals are expected Dec. 19, with a long-term report to evaluate changes by March 27, councillors affirmed in a unanimous vote after a sometimes bewildering series of amendments.
As recently as last week, staffers from the Traffic, Parking & Transportation department were telling residents that Garden Street changes needed to be assessed over as much as six months; the councillors’ vote upends that expectation, though in language that avoids a direct challenge.
“I want the city manager and Traffic & Parking not to feel like they need to wait six months to address concerns if they can address them sooner,” said councillor Paul Toner, the author of the policy order.
Questions swirled over timing, whether the order was too prescriptive and if some of the language was “a dig at the traffic department.”
A car stops on Walker Street at Linnaean, which residents say has seen more traffic since changes on nearby Garden Street. (Photo: Marc Levy)
A phrase was inserted by councillors to acknowledge that “many residents were not aware of the proposed changes” to Garden, even as they raced to reassure staff that the department “did an outstanding job reaching out,” in the words of vice mayor Alanna Mallon. “There were signs everywhere. There were big signs … Is that ever going to be enough? No.” That there are residents left out of planning “happens no matter how much we try,” councillor E. Denise Simmons agreed, insisting that the order’s added wording was “not about laying blame.”
The messages in the hourlong debate were sometimes contradictory and bogged down in questions about process, with councillor Burhan Azeem asking at one point if there was a way to clarify on the overhead screen what was happening. “There’s so many amendments floating around,” Azeem said.
Design changed in October
This second week of discussion followed the Oct. 28 addition of two-way bike lanes on Garden Street – a road that serves as the border between West Cambridge and Neighborhood 9 – on the stretch between Huron and Concord avenues. For cars, Garden Street was suddenly a one-way heading eastbound toward Harvard Square and Cambridge Common, part of changes citywide resulting from a Cycling Safety Ordinance passed in 2019.
The Garden Street changes sent vehicles to nearby roads such as Raymond and Walker, where some residents were shocked to suddenly find traffic and the hazards that came with it. “The safety issue has now moved from Garden Street onto the side streets. While you may believe the bikers to be safer, our children are now less safe,” said Joseph Adiletta of Walker Street.
Traffic officials held a meeting Wednesday to hear from affected residents, and there are two more listening sessions planned: in-person on Nov. 29 and online on Dec. 13.
Lanes here to stay
Residents gather at the Graham & Parks School on Wednesday to talk with transportation officials about Garden Street changes. (Photo: Marc Levy)
Between 100 and 150 people attended the Wednesday meeting, and almost 90 residents submitted comments on the issue to city councillors for Monday’s meeting, with around 30 calling in or taking the mic in City Hall during public comment. Even among the dozen-plus speakers with complaints such as Adiletta’s, none called for the bike lanes to be taken away.
“We are not asking the city to get rid of the new separated bike lanes – we enjoy them too,” said Judy Bright, who lives at Upland Road and Huron Avenue. “We are simply asking for a reconfiguration of a small section of Garden Street that will open Linnaean back up while keeping the separated bike lanes, and we are asking that we not wait six months to review this. The danger is now.”
Conversely, bicyclists were sympathetic to residents affected by the traffic changes even as flex-posts on the lanes went in Monday and traffic patterns began to be locked in on Google Maps. “It just takes time for human beings to adjust to these things. We’ve seen this in every other project,” said Chris Cassa, a bicycle advocate who lives on Gore Street in East Cambridge. “It’s a completely familiar experience to anyone who walks, bikes or takes transit in the city that many car drivers are unsafe and distracted. I’m completely supportive of identifying ways to improve the experience for these neighbors. We have tons of traffic-calming tools in the arsenal, including curb extensions, raised crosswalks, intersections, precast planters to narrow the road and hardened turns.”
Ongoing issues for debate
The question of how long to wait before tweaking the road design signaled early in the night by Bright and Cassa returned with council debate. “For us to quickly try to make adjustments now to this configuration wouldn’t allow for enough time to evaluate how this change is working,” councillor Quinton Zondervan said. “It’s premature for us to even mention specific remedies. “We should be focusing on making sure that the traffic department and the city manager are engaged with the residents and are measuring and evaluating what is happening there.”
The order was merely asking for a report on the feasibility of any mitigating changes, including the potential of “reverting to two-way if that’s the best solution,” Toner said. The specificity of the suggestion merely assured the idea wasn’t missed – and “sometimes our staff need cover or permission to think about things,” Toner said.
Councillor Marc McGovern agreed, saying that specific ideas the city should consider could be missed if they weren’t named.
New bike lanes have caused a conflagration in many parts of the city over lost parking spaces; this stretch of Garden Street already had less parking, which Toner said could make it a good candidate for returning to two-way car traffic.
But councillors – debating without transportation officials present – even disagreed on this, and Zondervan and Azeem warned that transportation officials might return with news that changing the configuration again made the trip more dangerous for bicyclists and perhaps “impossible to extend the bike lane further.”
A couple of comments.
1. As a regular cyclist through this area, I found Garden to generally be low stress prior to these improvements. So I would not have prioritized this street for protected bike lanes, though support these efforts on busier streets. The new Brattle PBL extension is great BTW!
2. I am curious if traffic speeds have increased on Garden as the one way lanes are now a bit wider and lack the friction of oncoming traffic?
3. Regarding traffic diversions on streets like Raymond, the city needs to do a lot more with mid block traffic calming. That is installing speed humps to slow and perhaps discourage cut throughs on residential streets. Somerville does this on a number of streets.
4. In the last week I have seen drivers go from Bond to Linnaean the wrong way on Garden, I am sure knowingly as later in the evening. Perhaps restore that two way movement at minimum?
5. I would gather Toner and Simmons will always complain about the process when it comes to bike lanes…
@runforit:
The bike lanes aren’t just for people who are comfortable biking now (who by definition have higher risk tolerance!), they’re also for people who were less comfortable before. For example, we heard from many parents of high school students who are very happy about this route, since their kids go/to from school or to/from Danehy. And there are parents of younger children who are now willing to bike there with their kids, when they weren’t before.
The city believes they can fix the cut-through traffic issues even without switching back to two-way, so seems worth giving them an opportunity to try.
What I find most distressing about all of this is that the issue with the bike lanes is always about the cars and the safety issues they inflict on residents, or the pollution they cause, or the congestion they cause.
Not many people complaining about having more bikes on their street.
I hope the city council remembers that as they move forward. The solution to dangerous conditions isn’t to revert a now safe street to an unsafe format — it’s to add *real* traffic calming measures to the afflicted residential streets.
I see many kids and families biking on garden street now. Our older children and teenagers, a group often ignored in these conversions, should be able to get around the city safely.
Hopefully next time there can be more forethought and engagement before implementing a change, then rolling it back like this one at taxpayers’ expense and ongoing confusion.
This is for sure a safety improvement for bikes and I applaud that, but not exactly a traffic improvement, or a safety improvement for raymond and other cut through streets.
Dear Runforit: You state “I would gather Toner and Simmons will always complain about the process when it comes to bike lanes…”. I think that is an unfair statement. I think the fact that 100 to 150 people showing up at a meeting for 2.5 hours on a weeknight to discuss their concerns about the unintended impact on side streets validates that although there may have been a good process targeting Garden Street residents, we did not fully engage others that this change would impact. Would it be better for City Councillors to ignore the concerns raised by residents? In addition, in your 4 prior points, you seem to agree with many of the issues raised by the residents.
Good point Paul.
Hopefully you and the city council will also evaluate the lack of success with the “quick build” in north Cambridge. It seems more times than not these installations turn into a mess.
As someone who sees the traffic jam to put it mildly on mass Ave 7-9am and 4-7pm weekdays there just has to be an easier way.
How many meetings and study groups is enough before the city can begin construction on their own property? What is the acceptable distance cutoff? What is the weight given to “side street residents” over all other tax payers in the city?
I suppose an argument could be made that the city would be in a better place now if similar guardrails had been in place when all the trolleys were ripped out in favor of cars.
But ultimately these bike lane installations are required by law in the city. So what exactly is all this delay meant to achieve? These people are going to be annoyed no matter what the city does.
I’d be willing to bet $$$ that you will get complaints from garden st residents who appreciate having less traffic on their street now, if the city reversed the one way in the future
I both bicycle and drive the Bond-Huron St. stretch, and support reopening it to two way traffic.
As a driver, it’s very awkward otherwise to reach Mass Ave from Craigie area, esp. with the No Left Turn sign at the (admittedly tricky) intersection from Concord to Chauncy.
As a bicyclist, I agree with the previous post that bicycling is low stress downhill from Huron to Bond – I always exhale with relief when I reach it. Bicyclists from the Rindge/ Danehy Park area must already tolerate the much worse stretch eastbound to Huron.
I don’t consider a meeting during the week of the July 4 holiday sufficient notice. Just as I don’t consider a meeting on the AHO during the week of Thanksgiving sufficient notice.
And I’d be willing to bet that Cambridgeresident is the same as FrankD, who seems to have disappeared.
thank you councilor Toner for speaking up and continuing to be engaged with residents’ concerns which is their right. I’m getting a bit tired of bike lobbyists who don’t have the patience or respect to hear others. I also appreciate the fact that unlike your fellow councilors, you actually listen instead of pushing a personal agenda by truncating outreach and engagement. sometimes problems can be evident and don’t have to wait a time frame to know they may not work. our current crop of councilors seem so beholden to special interests.
Amazing that this project was allowed. I’ve driven this route a few times now and have never seen a bike on it. Also Brattle St., where I do bike and I am solo for the entire stretch. The result has been increased traffic on side streets, making them more hazardous and less child-friendly, cars idling on Concord (so much congestion at Fresh Pond that I’ve stopped shopping there and go to more distant locations. So longer drives, more traffic, more exhaust, and as for safety, and the end result is to make me feel unsafe as a pedestrian, biker, and driver. Bollards everywhere; bikes driving on the road the wrong way instead of in the bike lane, electric scooters and bikes popping up out of nowhere, potholes everywhere, and bollards often thrown in the bike lane. You can’t retrofit these streets for bikes. You have to rebuild, slowly but surely and with engineers who know what they are doing.