These are just some of the municipal meetings and civic events for the coming week. More are on the City Calendar and in the city’s Open Meetings Portal.
Affordable housing law, Part I
Ordinance Committee, 6 to 8 p.m. Monday. This committee run by city councillors Marc McGovern and Quinton Zondervan looks at proposed amendments to the city’s Affordable Housing Overlay zoning to allow 100-percent-affordable buildings to rise to 12 stories along the city’s main corridors and to 15 stories in the squares, which is taller than current zoning allows but shorter than the 13-story and 25-story buildings originally proposed as a change. Councillors expect to recess this meeting and return to it Thursday – likely expecting this first session to be all or mostly public comment so the next one can get to debate. The committee meets at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom videoconferencing.
Adding green ordinances to code
Ordinance Committee, noon to 2 p.m. Tuesday. This committee run by city councillors Marc McGovern and Quinton Zondervan look at changing the municipal code to add a chapter for a “fossil fuel free demonstration” project and consider a proposed amendment to the building energy use disclosure ordinance requiring newly covered properties to go net zero by 2030. The committee meets at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom videoconferencing.
Massachusetts Avenue changes
Massachusetts Avenue Partial Construction Working Group, 3 to 5 p.m. Thursday. City staff and this group of advisers plan two site walks to see how travelers behave on the avenue before proposing design changes in a $50 million project. This walk goes from Porter Square to Waterhouse Street near Harvard Square, setting off from the red windmill sculpture at Porter Station, 1899 Massachusetts Ave.
Affordable housing law, Part II
Ordinance Committee, 3 to 5 p.m. Thursday. This committee run by city councillors Marc McGovern and Quinton Zondervan returns to discuss the city’s Affordable Housing Overlay zoning in a hearing begun Monday. The committee meets at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom videoconferencing.
Demolition in East Cambridge
Historical Commission, 6 p.m. Thursday. The return of a plan for East Cambridge in which a developer would take down the little offices at 231 Third St. (built in 1916) and single-family home at 235 Third St. (built in 1886) to put up a five-story building of 19 homes. Watchable by Zoom videoconferencing.
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.
leave it to the co-chairs of the ordinance committee- Councilors McGovern and Zondervan- to sponsor, submit and oversee and usher in one of the most consequential city-wide zoning in doubling the height of AHO without setbacks, or design oversight or even data and analysis to make a good project. as a matter of fact, neither self-important councilor thinks beyond “winning”. Shallow thinking has consequences. And I dare say that this kind of practice where neither co-chair recuses himself, smacks of conflict of interest and manipulation. Neither is known for magnanimous, even-handed and objective thinking. elections have consequences. we need thoughtful new people who are data-driven and represent constituents and not special interests.
@pete
“we need thoughtful new people who are data-driven and represent constituents and not special interests.”
Unfortunately, it is not going to happen this November or in any municipal election in the next several years.
As the city pointed out yesterday in its email, there are 13 districts in Cambridge. However, we have nine at-large councilors, representing special interests rather than an individual district. The recent charter commission preliminary conclusions seem to indicate that the status quo will be maintained.
So much for “representation of the people.”
@ FrankD
The bike petition and the discussion has been relegated to the files and off the front page. I’m sure I’ll be sending this again when the next bike article appears.
Cars are not the majority in the way people do some things. As you said, they walk, take public transportation, or bike.
You said: “ You don’t have *any* stats for your claim that drivers are the majority.”And then: “ Drivers are in the minority in Cambridge.”
But, for certain things, Cambridge residents drive their cars four times more often than ride their bikes. And two-thirds of Cambridge households own a car, and many own two or three cars. And then you said: “As for the other streets, the stats I posted clearly show that drivers are a minority in Cambridge in general.”
I would ask, a minority of what? Certainly they are not a minority compared to bikes.
Then you said: “According to city traffic counts, the number of cyclists on Hampshire street *outnumber* drivers.”
FrankD, that is not what the stats say. Even in the two areas of Cambridge that Hampshire Street covers, for certain important things, cars are used three times as much as bikes.
Now, you might not like those numbers, but they are seem to be real. As I’ve said many times, I’m a bike rider and I want safety. I also recognize there is a strong bike lobby. However, don’t play games with the numbers and try to convince people that bikes are in any way close to cars as to how people get around in Cambridge. It is simply not true.
“Hampshire Street ranks as one of the region’s busiest bike-commuting corridors: according to pre-pandemic traffic counts from the City of Cambridge data, nearly half of the people traveling on Hampshire Street during rush hours are riding bikes, one-third are riding in cars, and the remainder are transit riders.” From Cambridge to Upgrade Hampshire Street Bike Lanes in 2023 by Streets blog
Well, perhaps that is only on Cambridge St. But, the city is not only one street. Areas 2 and 3 include Cambridge St., and parts of Main Street,
Broadway, Cambridge St., Mass Ave, all streets where I ride my bike.
The stats show that in those two areas, cars are used three times as much as bikes during rush hours.
You brought up Hampshire street. I am simply refuting that claim you made about it.
You claimed the exact same statistic about Hampshire street above and when I looked it up I found out not only was that not true but that literally more people bike on Hampshire than drive. This is bizarre given your “don’t play games with the numbers” statement.
You are correct. I should not have said “FrankD, that is not what the stats say”, because I was referring to the entirety of Areas 2 and 3, not specifically to only Hampshire St., which is a part of 2 and 3.
Now again, why don’t we stop playing games with the numbers . Let’s move on to both Area 2 and Area 3, and even more importantly to the rest of Cambridge. What is your reading of the statistics for these two areas, the other areas of Cambridge, and the stats for all of Cambridge. What is the ratio of cars to bikes during the rush hour? I’m interested to hear what you believe.
You are constantly moving goalposts here and again you are the only one playing games with numbers. I am not interested in playing that game with you.
All actual evidence, and not simply your conjecture, available shows that drivers are already the minority in Cambridge, with most people walking, taking transit, and biking both to work: https://data.cambridgema.gov/Transportation-Planning/Labor-Force-Commuting-Mode-Split-1990-2000-2006-20/8acn-zxjt
That most people arrive to local Businesses by Walking, transit, and bikes: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/08/29/bike-lanes-and-safer-streets-benefit-everyone-including-businesses/
And this study also shows more people arrive to Inman square (aka area 3) by biking than driving: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/08/29/bike-lanes-and-safer-streets-benefit-everyone-including-businesses/ Kendall square in area 2 meanwhile accounts for 18% of all Bluebike trips.
I am not trying to overstate the numbers for bicycling and from what I’ve seen the people you responded to weren’t either. They had the numbers on their side. So far the only statistics you have claimed have been untrue. I am not a bicycle evangelist. Walking and taking transit are both equally good in my opinion. You on the other hand are overstating the importance of cars for local transportation, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
It is also worth noting the more bike lanes we build and the safer it is to bike the more people will bike. This isn’t conjecture, Cambridge residents have said so explicitly several times in phone surveys by the city (a polling method that skews conservative). In 2014 most people who expressed that they were interested but concerned about riding would be more comfortable doing so in protected lanes: https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/faq/
The 2018 bi-annual City of Cambridge Resident Telephone Survey found 2/3 of residents support adding protected bike lanes: http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2350&MediaPosition=&ID=8712&CssClass=
The 2020 community needs assessment asks more granular questions about barriers to riding. It found that 85% of people in Cambridge want to bike more and that the biggest barrier to cycling by far was the lack of protect lanes, followed by the lack of a connected bike infrastructure. On the flip side the major things people said the city could do to help them feel more comfortable riding are “More protected/separated bike lanes and paths. “More connected network/more consistency,” and simply “more bike lanes”
You can also already see that with the added lanes more people are riding in the bike data from the city: https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/gettingaroundcambridge/bikesincambridge/biketrends
There is also data from Boston showing that protected lanes increased bike share ridership on the corridor by 80% https://mass.streetsblog.org/2021/07/22/research-suggests-bostons-new-protected-lanes-boosted-bike-traffic-80-percent
There is no reason at all to assume the current mode share is static and unable to change. Every indication is that the safer it is to ride bikes the more people will do so. Both peoples stated preferences and the data on bike usage show this to be true.
Left out the link for the community needs assessment so here it is: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Bike/bikeplan/2020/finalchaptersjune2021/appendixb_survey2020_20210621.pdf
You said “So far the only statistics you have claimed have been untrue.”
In my corrected post I said, “The stats show that in those two areas, cars are used three times as much as bikes during rush hours.” Is that a good number for Area 2 and 3, and almost all of the rest of Cambridge, or not? Do you think that is true or untrue? It’s a simple question.
If I’m wrong, please correct me and I’ll admit my mistake. But, if I’m right, it would be good if you and others would stop speaking about the fact that more people, during rush hours (and at other times), ride bikes more than ride in cars.
As I said, three times as many cars than bikes.
@ Slaw
Let’s sum this up.
I believe the statistics show that 26.4% of the people in Cambridge going to their jobs take cars,
and 6.8% ride their bikes.
Do you agree with me or do you believe I am wrong?
“it would be good you and others would stop speaking about the fact that more people, during rush hours (and at other times), ride bikes more than ride in cars.” I haven’t done this. I have cited other statistics, and backed up all of them.
Why is it so important to highlight this out of context statistic despite no one ever actually saying what you claim they have?
why this is out of context and misleading:
1) 26.4 is still a minority, why should they get the majority of the road space on all streets?
2) the number of bicyclists grows every year and as I pointed out before is likely to grow even more with better bike infrastructure, while the number of drive alone commutes is decreasing.
3)What you build for determines the mode share.
@ Slaw
You said “26.4 is still a minority, why should they get the majority of the road space on all streets?”
That is the crux of the problem, and the fallacy in your argument and the argument of people like FrankD. Cars are not a minority for those using the. roads. That’s all we’re talking about; who uses the roads. We’re not talking about those who walk to work and to the few busses. We’re talking about cars and bikes on Cambridge roads.
The roads handle two types of traffic, aside from a few busses. There are bike riders and there are cars. The vast majority of road space, almost 80% during rush hours, and perhaps more after dark, in the snow and in the rain, is used by cars.
Those are the statistics. If you want to continue to bring up the fact that cars are in a minority in Cambridge as far as getting around, continue to do so.
However, if you want to deal with the real situation i.e. who is on the roads (the roads and what is happening to them is the focal point of your argument as well as others), then bikes are not a significant factor compared to cars.
I, and you, want bike safety. I’ll presume you are a biker as am I. However, this singular fixation on the thought that cars are a minority on the roads (which, as I showed, is not true) and your statement ” 26.4 is still a minority, why should they get the majority of the road space on all streets” is specious.
Best,
concerned43
“That’s all we’re talking about; who uses the roads. We’re not talking about those who walk to work and to the few busses.” People on busses and walking also use the roads. Where do you think busses drive?
“The vast majority of road space, almost 80% during rush hours, and perhaps more after dark, in the snow and in the rain, is used by cars.” What is your source for this statistic? and even if that is true that does not actually reflect population because again car drivers are a considerable minority. Cars are a terrible use of urban space, their geometry does not work in cities. Walking, biking, and transit all more effectively use space to move more people. I suggest you look up the pictures of how much space the same number of people take up by different modes, it is shocking how space inefficient cars are. People should not be entitled to more space because they use it inefficiently, if anything the opposite.
26.4% is a minority. If you are right that 26.4% of people take up 80% of the space that is a tremendous inequality that should be rectified. Your argument is specious.