After an extra two years and an additional $4 million, Inman Square construction is expected to be finished paving this week and get final touches on a public plaza within three to four weeks, according to Cambridge staff. With that, a project that has seen some four and a half years of construction will be done.
The project reconfigures confusing traffic patterns and reshapes public spaces with new lighting systems, replaces water mains and services and reconstructs the Springfield Street parking lot. Work took place on Hampshire Street between Amory Street and the Somerville line and on Cambridge Street between Fayette and Oak, said the the Department of Public Works’ Kristen Kelleher.
The redesign process began with a council order in June 2014, before the death of bicyclist Amanda Phillips in June 2016; went from a $3 million estimate to winning a $5 million appropriation from the City Council in 2018; and saw the hiring of Newport Construction in 2019 to see through what was expected to be a two-year project that had ballooned with a winning bid of $7.9 million.
The Covid pandemic and subsequent supply chain issues hindered construction once estimated to be complete by the fall of 2021. The added time allowed the contractors to implement changes improving on the original plan, Kelleher said.
“When you’re digging underground, you start to find things that aren’t as in good shape as you thought they were,” said Jerry Friedman, supervising engineer for Public Works.
An improved storm drain system in the square and on side streets was added after receiving updated climate change models partway through the project, Kelleher said. Additions including a “quick build” bike lane on Cambridge Street between Oak and Prospect and fire alarm infrastructure “meshed well with the work which Newport was already going to be doing” but brought the total to $10.4 million. With the needed consulting and engineering, the price tag ultimately rose to just over $12 million, Kelleher said.
In addition to a large piece of public art just installed, the public plaza features fixed and flexible seating requested by residents. It’s a place where “people can meet up and feel like they’re in the middle of a bunch of interesting retail,” Friedman said.
Brooke McKenna, the acting Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department chief, said she’s most excited for the public plaza – the project’s finishing touch – but said people have already been able to reap the benefits of the construction.
The initial main goal had been to reconstruct the intersection between Cambridge, Springfield and Hampshire streets – a safety hazard for drivers, bikers, passengers and pedestrians.
Hoping to improve safety and reduce the complexity of the intersection, the city hired Vanasse Hangen Brustlin to do an analysis during the summer of 2015. When Phillips died on Cambridge Street in 2016, the city released safety improvements while the intersection redesign project was ongoing; Traffic, Parking & Transportation held a public meeting to share the examination’s initial findings and possible recommendations a day before Phillips’ crash. During the meeting, the department revealed that 69 crashes had occurred in the square from 2008 to 2012. Phillips was the first fatality, but the department said at the meeting that the “intersection exceeds MassDOT statewide average crash rate.”
McKenna said the city decided that the only way to improve safety would be to completely reconstruct the area into two separate but coordinated intersections. Work began Jan. 30, 2019, with the removal of trees from the original Vellucci Plaza.
“The feeling was really that there was little to do around the edges to make it safer, and that to really make it a better place we would need to completely reconfigure the intersection,” McKenna said.
McKenna said she’s gotten a lot of “really positive feedback” about the changes.
“Prior to this project, it was really difficult to get from one place to another in Inman Square as a pedestrian,” she said. “I think it’s a tremendous change in how things operate, but I think overall it’s such an improvement over the old configuration.”
East Cambridge Business Association executive director Jason Alves was traveling and did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Christopher Calnan contributed to this report.
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.
Fantastic, big improvements like this are why I love living in the city of Cambridge
This is world class bike infrastructure. Mass really lacks protected intersections and doing this at such a weird intersection shows it can be done anywhere. We need more of this everywhere.
Are they going to be serving “reindeer meat” at Punjabi Dhaba now in Inman Square?? I’ve already noticed that when bicyclists get to the westbound crossing on the cycle track at Hampshire in front of the newly constructed plaza area they don’t wait for the special bike signal and use the appropriate crossing introduced there, but turn instead immediately left out into the travel lane to cross. As usual, despite spending $12 million on (supposedly) “safe bicycling infrastructure,” bicyclists in Cambridge will continue to, and are allowed to, do whatever they please, no matter where they are and no matter what the new supposedly “safer” infrastructure. Bravo, to the bicyclists who dominate our transportation planning in Cambridge… James Williamson – Candidate for Cambridge City Council
“Improvements”
I literally laughed out loud when I saw the metal deer in the middle of a brick heat island.
And yeah, how to make a weird intersection even weirder…..
But sure, probably better to have the risk of bicyclists hitting pedestrians than cars hitting either.
Huge improvement to Inman Square. So much easier to navigate. Big safety improvement to a notoriously dangerous intersection.
Before the redesign: “69 crashes had occurred in the square from 2008 to 2012…exceeds MassDOT statewide average crash rate”.
The redesign improved the safety of a dangerous intersection.
There was another benefit. The redesign included:
“An improved storm drain system in the square and on side streets was added”.
And you complain about the “weird intersection” and a metal deer? Seriously?
Is there no change the city can make that won’t invite irrational howls of complaint from some people?
I am a cyclist, driver, and pedestrian who lives about 3 blocks from Inman. The new design is much much better & safer for me when cycling; better as a pedestrian; a little worse when I am driving through. I did not park there much before, but can still find parking now if I need to pick up something heavy using a car.
I do wish it did not take so long and so much money to do the project, but that is common for Cambridge; I do not know how that compares with other places.
@Poor Bono Publico/James Williamson, you really have a misguided obsession with undermining improvements of biking and pedestrian infrastructure with this traffic laws argument but it simply doesn’t hold up to basic scrutiny. I will ask you the same and similar questions to what you ignored after making similar arguments elsewhere: Drivers of both cars and trucks don’t follow the “most rudimentary of traffic (safety) laws” and “in Cambridge will continue to, and are allowed to, do whatever they please, no matter where they are and no matter what the new supposedly ‘safer’ infrastructure” so why don’t you have the same outrage for dedicating the vast majority of our road space to them as you seem to have for dedicating a small part of it to bike lanes? Why are only the infractions of bicyclists used to deny them dedicated space on our roads but not other modes? Why are all bicyclists also made to answer for the worst behavior of their fellow bicyclists but this doesn’t apply to uses of other modes? Why do all bicyclists have to be beyond reproach in order for any one to deserve safe infrastructure? Why should the young kids learning to ride for the first time, or the mom with her kids on the back, or the disabled person who finds it easier to bike than walk not have safe infrastructure because you saw someone violate a traffic law once?
For someone who claims to be campaigning for improvements to pedestrian infrastructure, all I have seen from you is opposition to those improvements when they can be in any way also be said to be benefiting bicyclists as well. And despite your implications otherwise these improvements are not simply “supposedly safer” there is an enormous and growing body of research proving these treatments to be safer around the world and even by the FTA in Cambridge specifically. That safety improvement is explicitly not only for bicyclists but for all road users. Giving people on bikes their own separate and dedicated space is also better for pedestrians. But for some reason you seem to always want to pit them against each other, while ignoring the vast majority of road space is still dedicated to automobiles and that automobiles cause enormously more death and destruction. It is unfortunately still the car drivers and not the bicyclists that “dominate our transportation planning in Cambridge” and you are playing right into their hand with this irrational antagonism for bicyclists. Opposing bike lanes isn’t going to win you more space for pedestrians it is only going to maintain that dominance of the automobile.
You are consistently opposing what you claim to support, advocating against even temporarily closing roads for park space on Memorial and against expanding space for both bicyclists and pedestrians here because you have such a blind fury at bicyclists. I truly hope you never acquire the power you seek as it is clear you will not exercise it in a responsible way. Thankfully, I don’t think you will.
@Sam Nouber, “But sure, probably better to have the risk of bicyclists hitting pedestrians than cars hitting either.” If this were actually the trade off, literally yes. A car weighs thousands of pounds, an extremely heavy bike with an exceedingly large rider is still only going to be a few hundred pounds at most. Combine that with the fact that cars can also go considerably faster. Basic physics mean that being hit by a car is significantly worse than being hit by a bike because of the force of impact. As someone who has been hit by a car more than once I can say from experience I would certainly rather be hit by a bike than a car again, even though I had about the best case scenario for that.
However, that being said I don’t accept that this is the trade off. Creating dedicated spaces for bicyclists reduces rather than increases the conflicts with pedestrians (except for the specific situation of when pedestrians walk in the bike lane, which if James Williamson was consistent in his arguments, he would be responding to by calling to eliminate sidewalks). Bike lanes also make it a lot less likely that riders who are uncomfortable riding on the street (for valid safety reasons) will ride on the side walk, further reducing conflicts. This also means that even if you accept James Williamson’s framing that bicyclists are constantly putting themselves in danger, which in his framing frankly goes far beyond an even accounting of responsibility and into straight up victim blaming, giving them dedicated space would reduce the impact that has on others.
As such this design should both make pedestrians and people bikes less likely to be hit by cars, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians and people on bikes. It’s a win-win for what you claim to care about. As I said before this is literally world class bike infrastructure, if this isn’t good enough for you, maybe you should just admit that you oppose improving safety for people on bikes.
Well, you’ve got a long diatribe there “Slaw” (whoever you are). [BTW, is that kind of like “scofflaw…”?] Look, I’m very familiar with all your talking points. Trust me. I have to confess I can’t really read your entire lengthy and insulting tome. However, as usual, you miss the point. As this $12 million project nears completion, I simply noted that bicyclists are *already* ignoring this new “safety infrastructure.” I’ve seen this myself. Is that simple factual observation incorrect? I’m not sure why this complaint is so hard to grasp. I wonder if you have ever seen or heard me say there should never be separated bike lanes. Have you? Now that they exist, can you at least stay in them?? Try listening for a change. My primary complaint is that – regardless of the enormous amount of public money being spent on “safe bicycle infrastructure,” so many bicyclists continue to routinely ignore traffic laws – running red lights; racing through crosswalks; riding on sidewalks in business districts; and racing down one-way streets the wrong way, throughout the city. On a routine basis. In short, no matter what or how much “safety improvements” are introduced, bicyclists continue to ride UNSAFELY. GET IT? The mentality seems to be, “I can do whatever I want; because I can; because I’m a bicyclist.” If you don’t understand this simple, straightforward concept, you’re definitely part of the problem – for everybody. You’re the reason we have to have laws and rules, and why we urgently need to have them enforced. Again, bicyclists are not the ONLY people who matter here. I strongly favor enforcing rules for automobile drivers. They should stop at red lights. Why shouldn’t you??
My issues with the redesign are two:
(1) Would have been nice to add some shading or sun screen of some kind on that pedestrian plaza; as someone else noted, it’s going to be a heat sink in the summer for many years. (Until the trees are much larger, I guess.)
(2) The sidewalk and bike lanes bulge out directly in front of the Inman Square pop-up shop and the cannabis place; that forces traffic heading west to Harvard Square to swerve out in an odd way that seems to make traffic back up.
Otherwise, a good end to a long-running project. Thank the lord it’s done.
@Poor Bono Publico, you didn’t simply make that observation you also questioned the legitimacy of the safety improvements and claimed bicyclists dominate planning. That is what I was responding to. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn’t spend money on infrastructure that improves safety because there are bicyclists who break the law. Why does that only apply to bicyclists? Automobile drivers run red lights all the time. Are you questioning their right to the street and calling to take those lanes away? “jaywalking” is technically illegal in MA and as I said I’ve noticed pedestrians walking in the bike lane here too. Does that mean that there shouldn’t be sidewalks? The argument you are making does not make sense and you wouldn’t apply it to other modes. That’s why I keep genuinely asking the questions you have now twice ignored. I am asking you genuine questions and expressing a genuine concern for how you would exercise the power you seek you are the one throwing out insults, now several times.
Certain bicyclists breaking the law should not be an argument against bike infrastructure just like certain pedestrians breaking the law shouldn’t be an argument against pedestrian infrastructure. I have seen you now use people on bikes breaking laws to argue against improvements to both bike and pedestrian infrastructure (here and on memorial).
“Now that they exist, can you at least stay in them??” I do not constantly exist on a bicylce. I do bike sometimes but I mostly walk and take the T. When I bike I try to stay in the lanes. I hate riding on the street because I have been hit by cars twice doing so through no fault of my own when I had the right of way and cars turned into me on streets without bike lanes. You should be aware there are still plenty of those so it isn’t always possible to stay in bike lanes too.
Do you have the same anger for pedestrians walking in bike lanes (something I also try to avoid doing while walking but I see constantly)? Why is it bikes that inspire so much of your ire? Again I ask why are you so focused on this issue when car drivers do all the same things you say bicyclists do and actually kill people doing it?
As for the red light question I already answered it so will just copy that: “That’s also not getting into how treating bikes like cars at red lights makes them materially less safe and changing laws to allow bikes to treat red lights as stop signs improves safety for everyone, including pedestrians.” This is called the “Idaho stop” there is a lot of research that it improves safety for everyone. Bikes are not cars and treating them like cars makes people on bikes less safe and actually encourages them to take some of the risks you complain about in order to get som safe distance from the cars.
I do not advocate for bicyclists to break traffic laws, but I do advocate for changing laws that are not based on the best evidence and do not actually make people safer (in this case instituting the “Idaho stop”). I also advocate for improving road safety because safer streets mean that even when people do break traffic laws, the impact that has on others will be less.
@ Radiofreematt on 1) I agree about the shade. cutting down the existing trees was less than ideal and these will take a while to grow back.
on 2) that is on purpose to slow cars down at a crossing and to improve sight lines to the sharp street to the left. I think the minor added traffic is a worthwhile trade off there.