According to the city manager’s 2024 budget, there is a capital allocation of $50 million that will be the largest infrastructure investment related to the Cycling Safety Ordinance for the year. It is safe to assume that most of this money is for separated bike lanes.
In my view, and in the view of many citizens with whom I have spoken, this is an eye-popping figure for infrastructure that is used as sparingly as these lanes are used, and then during only good weather months.
But even if there were bumper to bumper bikes – excuse the clumsy metaphor – $50 million is a huge sum for poles in the ground! (I won’t go into the way these configurations destroy the beauty of our streets and historic neighborhoods and create economic problems and major inconveniences for businesses and residents.)
This figure does not of course capture what has already been spent nor what will be spent before the entire 25 miles of separated lines are complete. Is it possible that the Cambridge Safety Ordinance could cost us in the realm of $50 million to $100 million? Is this a serious possibility for this extremely controversial undertaking that benefits so few residents and nonresidents? Where is the transparency and accountability such expenditures require in a democracy?
Recently, I wrote to the City Council and city manager to urge them to put the brakes on this mission of folly before it is too late. I urged them to take a sober and hard look at what they are doing and what their full-steam-ahead policy is costing the citizens of Cambridge.
Last week, I asked the city manager in a public forum about this $50 million figure. I mentioned it could go to $60 million. The city manager did not flinch! He just explained that if that is what the engineers say, then that’s the deal. (I paraphrase). He also said that with bike lanes comes pothole repairs and other road repairs.
I think our city officials need a much better hold on reality if they believe citizens will accept such costs once they become well known – and they will be! And should there be any property tax increase because if this, they can expect a city in an uproar from owners and tenants who will also bear the brunt of tax increases.
In all my years of federal and state public service – more than 40 years – what I have learned is that when public officials continue to impose their will onto citizens for projects or policies that hurt the majority of citizens, ultimately the will of the majority will prevail and those unpopular policies will be reversed. Sometimes it takes a few years, but it will happen. In the meantime much damage is done, including the erosion of confidence in democratic institutions.
I think our city is at a crossroads. The cost of this public policy folly will soon become a major fiscal issue across our region. People can’t afford housing and groceries, and Cambridge officials are spending from $50 million to $60 million, $70 million or maybe $100 million dollars on bike lanes? How can a serious governing body think this would be appropriate?
I strongly urge city officials to stop and take a hard look at the fiscal path they are on. It will not have a happy ending for the citizens of Cambridge.
Barbara Anthony, Baldwin neighborhood
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
This is not a project to install flexposts. Flexposts are _vastly_ cheaper than this project.
The problem is that just using flexposts would require removing much of the parking along Mass Ave, something businesses would not be happy with. Given this, the City Council voted for the more expensive option. So in some sense this is $50 million for parking.
In practice, it’s doing rather more, of course. The money will also pay for:
* Pedestrian improvements; hopefully there will be more crosswalks across Mass Ave, for example.
* Better bus infrastructure, both on the road and bus shelters.
* Utility improvements.
* New traffic signals.
* Much nicer bicycle lanes: not flexposts, but physically separated.
The median will also be removed as part of this project.
You can learn more about the project here: https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/publicworks/cityprojects/2021/massave4massavepartialconstruction
No one blinks an idea at spending tens of millions of dollars to build car infrastructure. No one complains that the city spends $20 million a year parking with cheap residential parking parmits. Pedestrians, bus riders, and yes, cyclists, also deserve infrastructure improvements.
Finally, the streches of Mass Ave without separated bicycle lanes are some of the most dangerous stretches for people on bikes. This is a _safety_ improvement, that will reduce injuries and quite possibly save someone’s life. As someone who lives in the Baldwin neighborhood, it’s sad that one of my neighbors believes that my family (and my upstairs neighbors, or the neighbors next door, and all the other people in my neighborhood who bike) don’t deserve to get around safely, that our lives don’t matter.
Typo in above, should’ve been “No one complains that the city spends $20 million a year subsidizing parking with cheap residential parking permits.”
Thing I don’t like isn’t used by me therefore it must not be worth it.
As someone who rode his bike 1000+ miles in the last nine months, often with a seven year old on the back, I couldn’t disagree more with this letter
@Barbara, As you say, the $50 million dollars is predominantly not for the cost of the actual bike lanes — you are correct that flex-posts and lane striping for the bike lanes is actually very inexpensive. A great deal of the estimated cost is coming from doing road construction work which will a) retain parking by removing the median, b) improve the quality and number of crosswalks, and c) all of the other road work that needs to get done, including filling potholes, improving/routing utilities for signals, and phasing construction to minimize impacts.
Road work is staggeringly expensive, and the many, many residents who do not own cars contribute to it with their property taxes as well. Many of us also drive, but primarily walk, bike, and take the bus to do our shopping and dining in this wonderful urban center. We also deserve a safe and efficient way to get around, and it is worth spending our tax dollars to improve conditions on a major road like Mass Ave for everyone.
Interestingly, to your point about property taxes. Somehow, my property taxes are down in absolute dollars (and even more in ‘real’ dollars), over the 14 years I’ve been in my condo. My understanding from reading the annual tax reports is that I am not alone, the large majority of households are having minimal increases in taxes each year, despite very large increases in property values.
I am proud to have my tax dollars go to our senior health and housing services despite not being older, and to our schools despite not having a child in the system, and to any other major municipal need. I am part of a community, and I care about the health, safety, and needs of my neighbors.
Wait until you find out how much car infrastructure costs.
I support spending money on better road infrastructure that reduces the chance that I or my family are killed or maimed as a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver
This letter is disingenuous in hand waving large expenses without specifying where the true cost goes. Removing the mass ave median, reworking road signals, adding parking, bike lanes, clearer pedestian paths. These all take serious money and have long term payoff.
I remember walking past museum of Science intersection where Meng Jin was killed. The visual of a 15 foot streak of blood leading to a giant pool of blood sticks in my mind. There was a mangled bike moved to the side and thankfully I didn’t see his crushed body. I sometimes wonder if an accident like that could happen to someone in my family. We should do more to have the infrastructure that mitigates these tragedies
Enough of the rhetoric of scare tactics and the bloody images.
Barbara Anthony raises very important questions about our city governance:
It is not about bike lanes or no bike lanes, it is not about safety or lack thereof.
It is about fiscal transparency, responsible management, and supporting the priorities that are most needed by our city.
Safe streets for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and all essential, but is spending a projected $100 million on a network that is not even liked by many cyclists and has proved to be more dangerous than the bike lanes we had before a good strategy? Don’t keep throwing good money after bad on a flawed plan. Do your job and give us the full statistics, the raw data, and the real numbers.
Cambridge’s money would be better spent on affordable housing, after-school programs for all children, food insecurity, and urban forestry.
We need to tone down the rhetoric and open our minds!
Who cares if it costs 50m or 60m – the govt spent over 2 Trillion for the Covid response and taxes haven’t gone up.
When you max out credit card just get another one and another one.
Let’s spend it and see what we get!
The reactions to critiquing the bicycle lanes is similar to those of casting aspersions on one’s religious practices.
It is interesting to hear the Council express grave concern over the lack of affordable housing, proposing zoning changes to a 2 year old plan to confront the crisis. Yet the same council will spend $50 M on a project that has questionable payback without any evaluation? Affordable housing will transform the lives of many families who could continue to call Cambridge home. Yet the `benefits’ of separated bike lanes are still TBD. Increased ridership? Unproven. Increased safety? Unproven. (There is a report the city has not refuted stating the streets are more unsafe in areas of separated bike lanes.) Separated bike lanes bring more business to Cambridge businesses? Unproven but being looked at. Why is the council afraid to pause and take a look at impacts? Why are the cycling advocates not calling for an evaluation to prove the streets are safer? Perhaps it is because they are afraid of what might come out of a proper evaluation? It is just good sense to evaluate whether a project is meeting its goals and understand impacts. Tax payers deserve to know how their money is spent and to be assured it is well spent on effective programs. Just common sense.
This letter is ridiculous. Roads cost way more to build and maintain because of cars. People who don’t drive have to pay for that too.
Bike lanes save lives and prevent accidents. How much money is that worth?
Driving increases pollution, noise, and climate change. It increases the cost of real estate due to parking requirements. Cars kill 7000 pedestrians every year in the US.
In short, EVERYONE pays a price for driving whether they drive or not. And this author thinks bike lanes are not worth it because not enough cyclists use them??
The selfishness and short-sightedness of people never cease to amaze me.
Cambridge Day needs to exert more editorial control over the Opinion section. Silly screeds like this diminish Cambridge Day’s credibility.
Oh my. The cost of maintaining roads for driving is huge and has doubled over the years.
We should stop doing that. Why should non-drivers have to pay for this?
“1977 to 2020, in 2020 inflation-adjusted dollars, state and local government spending on highways and roads increased from $98 billion to $204 billion (107 percent increase).”
Source:
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures
Most of the bike lanes are good, but a few have really snarled and exacerbated traffic and safety concerns in some neighborhoods.
Regardless, yikes 50 million dollars is truly eye popping expense when schools are crumbling, addicts are dying almost weekly in the public health disaster that is central square, and housing largely unaffordable to an ever shrinking middle class of people with families.
@Q99 Cars are a major reason why real estate prices are high. Big roads and parking eat up a lot of land that could be used for housing. In some cities, whole neighborhoods were plowed over to make room for highways. Parking uses up huge amounts of space and thus drives up prices. All true. Look it up yourself.
Cambridge spends $70M *a year *to maintain roads. Why should I pay for that when I don’t drive?
Yikes. Those are eye-popping expenses when schools are crumbling, etc.
AvgJoe, I completely agree regarding Cambridge Day’s credibility and the disproportionate amount of hysterical rants like this one published in the opinion section.
Cambridge should add a tax to non-commercial vehicles over a certain weight like big pickups and SUVs. Besides being dangerous, they require more money to be spent on road maintenance because of their weight. I believe something like this was proposed or is in the works in DC.
@mrchatterbox
Totally agree. Trucks and SUVs are dangerous to others, especially pedestrians. They burn more fossil fuels (they are exempt from minimum MPG requirements) and because of their weight, they do more damage to the road (everyone pays for that). Taxes should be raised on their non-commercial use. Yes.
@MC Resident
There is nothing “questionable” about the benefits of bike lanes. They have been proven over and over again to reduce cyclist fatalities by 75% or more. They have been shown to increase safety for pedestrians. They have been shown to reduce car accidents through traffic calming and reducing lane changing. And, guess what, they have been shown to improve local business.
You can look all this up for yourself. That would have been a good thing to do before positive inaccurate claims.
There is nothing questionable about it. Not liking them does not make them “questionable”.
The Federal Highway Administration has studied Cambridge’s flexpost bike lanes (as well as those in 4 other cities) and concluded they reduce crashes by 50% compared to painted bike lanes: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf
Again, this is a study that includes data from Cambridge specifically. Separated bike lanes work!
There were 3 plans presented by the City. One was a “quick build,” which would have been cheaper but would have resulted in almost all of the parking in this 2 mile stretch being lost, and virtually no other improvements. The second plan was a major reconstruction, which would have cost much more, and taken multiple years to complete. The third plan, and the one in front of us, is to add dedicated bike lanes, remove the median, remove the bus wires, address pedestrian safely at the over 50 intersections, add more crosswalk and pedestrian lights, and significantly reduces the amount of list parking out of concern for the businesses.
The City is not spending $50 million to install bike lanes. This is a significant project trying to address many issues.
+1 to Marc’s point, this was the compromise option that was picked for so many good reasons.
It’s a win-win and represented a lot of work from everyone. The progress was palpable at the many community and city council meetings, and I’m glad we got there together.
So, opinions are opinions, but as others have pointed out, this piece makes some claims of fact that simply aren’t true. It’s not the first occurrence of that problem, either.
I know Cambridge Day is looking to make some big improvements soon, and I wonder if one of those improvements could be adding some amount of fact-checking to opinion pieces that make claims of fact. My understanding is large papers do basic fact-checking of opinion pieces and op-eds, and while I appreciate the big gap in resources between a NYT and CD, I think if it is at all doable, the local news reading community would benefit enormously from that.
So if this is the Barbara Anthony I found on LinkedIn I’m really not sure how her “40 years” of public service at the FTC and some regulatory stuff in Mass gives her any particularly special insight to comment on municipal roadworks but whatever. It’s a petty response but this is a petty profoundly petty letter
Anyway, I find all this stuff hard to follow and commend those that do, but whatever the history of the cycling ordinance or whatever. This stretch of Mass ave is pretty bleak urban highway that I don’t enjoy biking along or driving because people speed like maniacs. Why isn’t it a great idea to make this a better road. $50M seems fine to me. Our roads are embarrassingly atrocious so I don’t see any problem investing to make them better.
@mrchatterbox
“Cambridge should add a tax to non-commercial vehicles over a certain weight like big pickups and SUVs. Besides being dangerous, they require more money to be spent on road maintenance because of their weight.”
Why don’t you look at the CPW department.
Why does a snow plow have to go around my block thirty times with the plow down when there is only two inches of snow?
And for all those speaking about fossil fuels,
why does the city continue to use incredibly inefficient vehicles and keep lights on in municipal buildings when not needed.
Look to what the city is doing before going on
about climate control, fossil fuels, and wasted electricity.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/044/247/297.png
So what we have here is targeting a single aspect of what is a broader expense (road maintenance, redesign and repairs) and pointing at that aspect as the main cause of expense without any proof of such.
This is a political manipulation to stir emotions and cause a division in the local population, probably to the benefit of a certain sub-section of people who are in general opposition for some reason to either spending at all or with a personal bias of some sort involved or a hope to use it as a wedge issue in the near future.
The author does make a good point about the lack of fiscal transparency on anything bike-related, even if just tangentially related. I made a public records request to get the cost of COMPLETED intersection changes in my neighborhood. The changes were unrelated, but adjacent, to new bike lanes. My request was REFUSED. When I reached out directly to the city council for assistance, two members replied that their attempts for cost information from the traffic department were also refused. Why are they refusing to disclose the costs of completed projects? Not even to the city council? The traffic department is not transparent, which simply fosters distrust and suspicion.
I would be more sympathetic toward bicyclers’ safety concerns if I could see more of them actually stopping at red lights. It is rare to see them stop.
Wow. Quite an experience. Query- why do so many only use initials rather than full names. Just wondering. So, some comments are informative and I appreciate the information. The point remains, however, that most of the components of the Mass Ave installations are related to the separated lanes. It’s the whole purpose. We can disagree over whether the ultimate price tag for the entire 25 miles which could reach $100 when all is completed over the next several years is really the most beneficial use of tax dollars. Query: would some other scaled down plan that provides the safety people claim to crave (although watching many cyclists zoom through red lights, one does wonder if any amount or infrastructure will protect some) and would cost less be sufficient. We don’t know the answer to that question because there is lack of transparency regarding all the finances involved and a lack of any due diligence over the CSO to make sure all that was originally planned is indeed the only way to go. There is no look back so to speak- no effort to make sure that if we spend this 100 million is it something that is truly necessary for the small minority of resents and non-residents. Let’s not forget that many users are just passing through to neighboring cities on tax dollars coming from Cambridge. Is there any effort underway to actually measure usage – the number of people who actually use these lanes.
And, I for one would like to see a break down by demographics: sex, age, race, ethnicity, place of residence , etc. For example, if it turns out that most riders are caucasian males under 35, and the rest of us are cross-subsidizing that demographic, let’s at least be transparent about it.
I was struck by some of the language used by various initial holders – sorry I don’t know your names – but words like “silly” “hysterical rant” “selfish” “ridiculous” are oftentimes used when denigrating women. That’s a fact. Interesting.
But the most offensive and disturbing comments dealt with censorship under the guise of policing editorial content. Some Cambridge folks talk a good game relating to free speech but when one scratches the service, we find the same regressive and neo-fascist tendencies that are found everywhere else. If you disagree with these people, your facts are fake news and shouldn’t be allowed in print. Seriously? Ouch!
Some of these folks remind me of the the angry tenants groups who wanted to burn me in effigy when I chaired the Cambridge Rent Control Board because I didn’t agree with them on the law. I see we haven’t made great strides in the free speech area over the past 30 years.
And one final comment, and you won’t find this on LinkIn so don’t bother, but I did spend many years after my obtaining my masters in economics working in urban transportation analysis at the Volpe center and then I continued to work on interstate transportation in the federal government in DC. I’m no expert but one doesn’t have to be a bike lane expert to call for transparency and accountability for all citizens not just for those with the loudest voices.
@akcg, regarding the costs of the intersection near your house, it may be possible that the project was done by a different department — many sidewalk / intersection / crosswalk projects are done by the Department of Public Works, which is separate from transportation.
@akcg and @BarbaraAnthony, regarding the transparency question, I wanted to draw your attention to the design process working group (which includes residents and members of the small business community): https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/publicworks/cityprojects/2021/massave4massavepartialconstruction
This group will weigh in on a number of design decisions, which will ultimately get integrated into the project plan. Once that project plan is set, then there can be a more detailed/exact budget which accounts for the exact costs (e.g., road work, lane striping, signals, crosswalks).
@BarbaraAnthony, I would also respectfully mention that many cars on North Mass Ave are not driven by Cambridge residents, as it is a major thoroughfare which people use to drive to destinations within Cambridge or beyond. People on bikes or transit are no different, they are all using Mass Ave to get where they need to go, and their safety and efficiency is just as important as those in cars.
I’d like to also draw your attention to the small business intercept studies which were conducted by small business associations and the city’s economic development department (which pre-date the bike lanes). They find that the minority of actual business customers (intercepted on the way into the store/restaurant) are arriving by car:
https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/09/22/bike-lanes-and-local-business-the-economic-impact/
Millions of trips are made by bike in Cambridge each year (there is sensor and bike share utilization data to back this up). Biking is a real and valid mode of transportation for a very wide variety of people, of various ages, backgrounds, and abilities. In any case, I am having a hard time following the argument about not improving road safety ‘if it turns out that most riders are caucasian males under 35’, could you explain this rationale more?
If it is related to the idea of ‘cross-subsidizing’ — I would mention that the very large majority of local road costs are from everyone’s income and property taxes, not from gas or excise taxes or registration fees. Despite not owning a car, my property taxes are what is contributing to these projects. Could you clarify what you mean by subsidizing here, is there another mechanism by which you think cars owners only are paying for the city bond here?
We all pay for our streets and deserve safe and efficient ways to get around.
Does anyone seriously think removing the medium strip separating 4 lanes of busy vehicular traffic – Mass Ave – which is technically part of the state highway system – is a good idea? Will that make Mass Ave safer for pedestrians or motorists (the overwhelming majority of travelers) both personal and commercial? That little island between those busy lanes is a safe haven for pedestrians and it is a physical barrier separating lanes of ongoing traffic. Somebody at some time thought the medium strips were a good idea. What happened? If they are eliminated, who benefits and why?
“median strips” – please excuse typo.
@BarbaraAnthony, over the last two years, there has been an extensive and transparent public process, including many public meetings for Porter Square as well as the remaining segments of Mass Ave, over Zoom and at in-person open houses. These meetings and analysis culminated in an 8-1 city council vote in favor of this approach.
Removing the median provides an opportunity to retain more parking, provide more flexibility in road design, and the median refuge islands can still be retained near the crosswalks. Removing medians on roads like Mass Ave have been shown to reduce vehicle travel speeds, which is important for improving pedestrian safety. But leaving aside the bike lanes and pedestrian safety, if you like parking, removing the median is a great idea, because it will allow for parking retention.
Here is an op-ed about it:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/03/13/moving-forward-together-on-mass-ave/
Here is a video with the three different design options were detailed by city staff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1GL09OP7NI
@BarbaraAnthony:
1. The medium strip is not a safety feature for pedestrians, cyclists, etc. It’s a freeway feature that we added to various urban streets in the 1950’s to 1970’s, back when we were planning interstate extensions like the i695 beltway through Somerville, Cambridge and Boston, or the Route 2 extension through Porter and towards i695. It’s designed to encourage high speeds, which is great for commuters but terrible for everyone’s safety (including motorists).
2. Removing the medium does make things safer for pedestrians. It’s not a “safe haven” for pedestrians. We design those when we build crosswalks – pedestrian refuge islands. The medium is meant for high speed driving. That is not safe for pedestrians.
3. Yes, someone, back in the 1960’s, thought medians, slip lanes and other highway like features were great things. They were focused heavily on throughput and gave little concern to safety.
4. What happened? The following decades revealed a massive amount of data that suggested these features were not meant for City streets. Yes, Mass Ave may be part of the “State Highway system”. That does not mean it needs to be a literal highway though. Plenty of “State Highways” pass through City centers. They can be designed as highways in the suburbs and rural parts, but designed as City streets in urban centers.
5. Who benefits? First, safety is improved. Drivers no longer will feel comfortable driving 40-50 mph on a City street. They may top out at 30 or 40 mph now, just from the redesign of the street. We also gain back more space, which gives us more options when redesigning the street. As mentioned previously, this enables more parking to be preserved while still adding crosswalks, bus infrastructure and yes bike lanes.
I’m really surprised someone who claims to have studied urban transportation and interstate highways is unaware of these things. I strongly suspect you were aware of these things, but ignored them because you feel strongly that this street should not be redesigned. It’s baffling. It’s an overall win for the urban design of Mass Ave if we remove the medium and reallocate the space to various users.
I’d also like to see some data showing that “the overwhelming majority of travelers” is motor vehicle traffic. I would wager if you factor in subway riders (the Red Line was built directly over Mass Ave as a cut & cover project in the mid 1980’s!), bus riders (major bus routes leverage Mass Ave), pedestrians (subway and bus riders plus local residents) and cyclists (possibly a combination of the above if going multi modal via blue bikes), etc would be the overwhelming majority of users of Mass Ave. Cars “look” overwhelming when people are commuting to their office job in a jacked up F150, but if they’re all carrying a single suburban office worker then it’s not the majority of traffic on Mass Ave.
Barbara,
Thanks so much for articulating what so many of us are thinking. Like many I walk around my neighborhood wondering why and how these projects are approved and funded. The lack of transparency and responsiveness is frustrating (I’ve had fruitless email exchanges with the town manager and others). More of us need to speak up and demand a more rational approach to street safety. The process has been hijacked by a very effective special interest group.
This is not a hysterical rant because you are a woman but because it is a letter that is stirring up fear and animosity about something based on untruths. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but these should not be published if they are demonstrably based on falsehoods. Fact-checking is warranted.
If you want to talk about demographics, I would reevaluate your implication that everyone who rides a bike is a white male under 35. Also, I suspect that you do know that people of color are disproportionately victims of car centric design. From this piece in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/26/opinion/road-deaths-racial-gap.html “Black people were more than twice as likely, for each mile walked, to be struck and killed by a vehicle as white pedestrians. For Black cyclists, the fatality risk per mile was 4.5 times as high as that for white cyclists.” Car centric design has a racist history as well; the design of roads like Mass Ave and Alewife Brook Parkway is meant to get white suburbanites into and through cities quickly for their commutes. They were not designed for the people who actually live there.
I’ve seen so many folks on this website ask why some people don’t put personally identifiable information in their username. It’s meant to discredit what someone says without addressing the substance of it. I’ve seen it multiple times (especially from the NIMBY type folks) and some people even imply that folks are “hiding behind” their usernames. It’s disingenuous and just comically predictable at this point.
The city posted a more detailed breakdown of costs a few days ago, perhaps in response to this op-ed. It confirms what other commenters (including a city councillor) have already pointed out: this is a major construction project that addresses a lot more than just bike lanes. Those interested can read the document here: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/publicworksdepartment/Engineering/cityprojects/MassAve4/2023_05_26_MassAvePC_50MFINAL.pdf