Though Cambridge’s election season started slowly, the Nov. 7 ballot will likely have more candidates than in 2021.
To appear on the ballot, City Council and School Committee candidates needed to turn in nomination papers with between 50 and 100 valid voter signatures to the Election Commission by 5 p.m. Monday. At that time, the commission had certified signatures from 18 of 26 people who took nomination papers throughout July. Another six were waiting certification on their collected signatures. With possibly 24 candidates come November, this year’s ballot could be five names longer than last election.
Among the candidates is a group concerned about bicycle lanes – a topic that has dominated city politics like few others since passage of a Cycling Safety Ordinance in 2019 and 2020.
John Hanratty serves on the board of Cambridge Streets for All, a group that tried suing the city to undo bike-lane installations resulting from the ordinance. He has complained about inconsistent bike lane statistics and wrote an analysis saying the lanes have caused injuries to increase.
Like Hanratty, Joan Pickett is a member of Cambridge Streets for All and has written about transportation and the potential dangers of electric bicycles.
Hanratty and Pickett were plaintiffs in the 2022 injunction case against the city that would have stopped Cambridge from building more protected bike lanes. It was denied in the Middlesex County Superior Court.
James Williamson, who has run for council four times before, also supported reforming street infrastructure, though he will not appear on the November ballot. A few minutes before 5 p.m. Monday, Williamson turned in a second sheet of signatures that would have put him over the 50-signature threshold. Because some of the information on the sheet had not been filled out, however, the commission staff said they could not count the signatures, leaving him at only 46.
“I admit it. I goofed. (Easy to do in this situation). I do, however, wonder why this apparent ‘glitch’ – given it’s evidently having tripped up numerous other potential candidates before – has not and should not be corrected, to avoid similar unnecessary mishaps in the future,” Williamson said in a letter published in Cambridge Day. He encouraged supporters to vote for him as a write-in.
New council candidates
Along with Williamson, Nathaniel Sandalou-Ash, who took out his nomination papers Monday, fell below the 50-signature threshold. He turned in no signatures.
Sandalou-Ash was one of the few candidates to take nomination papers in the past two weeks. These candidates also include: Hanratty; Hao Wang, a West Cambridge resident who says he has been a manager of large businesses and nonprofits; Doug Brown, a Fresh Pond Residents Alliance board member who has proposed green zoning to the council over the years; and Federico Muchnik, a filmmaker and adjunct faculty member at Lesley University. (Disclosure: Muchnik has written about film for Cambridge Day.)
In the Nov. 7 election, Cambridge voters will elect nine at-large city councillors, who will serve two-year terms. After they take office, the councillors will elect one of their own as mayor.
School Committee
The School Committee race has also gotten a few new names recently, though only two collected enough signatures to appear on the November ballot: Elizabeth Hudson of Neighborhood 9 and Richard Harding, a former School Committee member from The Port who ran unsuccessfully for City Council in 2017.
Of the 15 committee candidates who took nomination papers, six have at least 50 signatures officially certified. Four additional candidates have turned in enough signatures but await official certification. If all 10 of these candidates end up on the ballot, there will be one more candidate than in 2021.
Voters will elect six School Committee members in November. The mayor heads the School Committee.
The council will see at least three new members join its ranks for the first time since 2017, as vice mayor Alanna Mallon and councillors Dennis Carlone and Quinton Zondervan chose to not run. School Committee member Fred Fantini is retiring, and Ayesha Wilson has launched a council bid, meaning the committee will have at least two new faces.
Election Commission staff have until Aug. 14 to certify signatures on nomination papers. The deadline for municipal candidates to file a withdrawal of nomination is Aug. 16.
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.
Let’s be clear, the bike lane issue is important as a symptom of poor city planning, lack of transparency, opaque details on budget, and especially the fact that the Ordinance was amended to impose a rigid and radical timeline basically behind closed doors during Covid. The steamroller strategy has also been employed on other policies during the term of the present City Council — and that is why so many people are running!
It is not that current candidates opposed bike lanes specifically, they opposed the process of bike lane implementation and tried to be heard, when stonewalled, they tried first for a temporary restraining order.
Since then many neighborhoods have been negatively impacted by the advance of bike lane onto streets throughout the city. Every day, residents are being harmed, and even injured, by this policy. Merchants, those who need to drive to go to work, seniors and the mobility impaired, perhaps 80% of the Cambridge population not have been heard, and their harm is ongoing.
This issue has become too divisive, Cambridge needs to do bike lanes right. Cambridge also needs City Councillors who understand the intersection of the policies they develop and the broader economic and environmental impacts of what they impose. Don’t confuse the forest for the trees on this one. And by the way, pay attention to the trees, our world desperately needs them — and Cambridge needs to do a better job on preserving them!
Hanratty and Pickett were part of a lawsuit to _remove_ every single quickbuild separated bike lane in the city. It’s not about a pause, it’s not about designing them better, it’s not a “temporary restraining order”. They want every quickbuild bike lane gone.
They make claim otherwise, as Pickett has in a recent op-ed, but this is bald-faced lying. They asked to remove all the quickbuild bike lanes, period.
You don’t have to believe me, either; here’s a screenshot of the statement of the judge (Hon. John Pappas) who ruled against their preliminary injunction: https://ibb.co/55kkC1j
“Plaintiffs Cambridge Streets for All, … , Joan Pickett, … John Hanratty, … are business and property owners in the City of Cambridge… The Plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the City from building any more bike lanes and directing the City to remove the bike lanes already in place.”
If you want to read the original, go to https://www.masscourts.org/, search Middlesex Superior Court for case 2281CV02441. The screenshot is from the memorandum from 07/01/2022.
Great comment above. And, by the way, Cambridge Day seem to have a promising new, and fair, scribe (to me, anyway) in Matt Rocha. Bravo! Thanks for including my painful travesty in your brief summary. I’m feeling embarrassed, to say the least. I do hope the Election Commission will consider finding a way to better *highlight* the relevant “petition” sentence, that duplicates the “candidate statement” section directly above it on page one. There are also spaces set aside on the reverse signature page, for “candidate,”and “office,” which are interestingly *not* evidently required to be filled out prior to continuing to gather signatures there. This seems a bit of a discrepancy but, according to the deputy director of the EC, the section on the front page – that is, the separate, seemingly redundant, statement – is spelled out as a requirement in the Charter, whereas the smaller section at the top of the back page is not, so they don’t treat that as such. (Interesting. Not entirely sure what to make of that, but…) I will regret not being able to have the additional leverage that comes with being a recognized candidate on the ballot. To slightly correct Matt’s summary, I am most concerned about the lack of rules that are actually *enforced* for bicyclists – for safe streets, crosswalks, and sidewalks for all of us, not just bicyclists. That, and not “doubling down on density” for poor people when addressing the widespread need for truly affordable housing. If the Election Commission can have rules – as they obviously should and do – for ballot access, surely we can have rules *that are enforced* for bicyclists, who ride so recklessly on our streets, endangering themselves and others. Much as I appreciate the suggestion from a friend in East Cambridge to run as a Write-In Candidate, I do not want to mislead friends and potential supporters into thinking I will be running a serious write-in campaign. I will not. Good luck to those candidates who paid careful enough attention to fill out the entire front page of their second nominating paper sheet completely and successfully, and will hence be on the ballot. I’ll be looking for common sense and sanity from the best of you. Thanks. James Williamson (Cambridge Citizen – humbled, but unbowed…)
Here is a direct link to the ruling: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22077340/070122-injunction-decisions.pdf
It is pretty clear that Hanratty and Pickett are lying about the full extend of their intentions.
@NC walker “perhaps 80% of the Cambridge population not have been heard” It is almost completely the opposite. 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”: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Bike/bikeplan/2020/finalchaptersjune2021/appendixb_survey2020_20210621.pdf
Poling conducted by the city over the phone (which actually skews conservative and older) also shows 2/3 of Cambridge residents support adding bike lanes: http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2350&MediaPosition=&ID=8712&CssClass=
Are you kidding me, over the phone — you mean landlines? Almost no one answers their phone anymore.
CDD and TPT surveyed the people they wanted to hear from and for months and months and months hundreds have asked them to listen to their concerns. At all those “listening” sessions, there was no “hearing” going on. That is why so many people are running. The way the CSO has been handled is just one example of the problem. Look at what is happening with the AHO upscale, ramming it through despite overwhelming concern about the current plan. People are not opposed to affordable housing, they are not telling the city to put it elsewhere, they are asking for it in their neighborhood, built at a scale that is livable and fits into the landscape, trees and all.
Bike lanes (or rather the choked traffic, lack of parking, insults to people who want a better plan) may be one issue that has pissed people off, but it is hardly the only one. I have never heard people so angry about the state of the city- the traffic mess, the wasted money, the poorly designed housing projects, the rats, the decimation of trees, the decline in schools, the empty store fronts. 2023 is the “I am fed up,” “throw the bums out” local election, and a number of new candidates seem to have decided to run to take back the city from the current establishment for that very reason. Time will tell if they will be successful.
>>It is not that current candidates opposed bike lanes specifically, they opposed the process of bike lane implementation…
And yet, in the end, they’ll vote to abolish bike lands– and everyone knows it. Hence I’ll be voting against them.
“over the phone — you mean landlines? Almost no one answers their phone anymore.” Which is why I said it skews conservative and older, which in your framing would seem to indicate less support for bike lanes but even with that demographic imbalance the support for them is massive.
“CDD and TPT surveyed the people they wanted to hear from and for months and months and months hundreds have asked them to listen to their concerns” This is nonsense, you are just mad that your position is the minority position so you pretend the process was bad, rather than acknowledge most people don’t actually agree with you.
“That is why so many people are running.” there are 2/3 absolute cranks running for 9 seats, that isn’t really that major of an upswell, even if they win (and I highly doubt they will) the council will still reflect the actual majority position of the city.
“People are not opposed to affordable housing, they are not telling the city to put it elsewhere, they are asking for it in their neighborhood, built at a scale that is livable and fits into the landscape, trees and all.” If you build the same number of houses horizontally as vertically you will have a lot less space for trees. adding density helps preserve the things you claim to care about. Sprawl is not better for the community or the environment.
“Bike lanes (or rather the choked traffic, lack of parking, insults to people who want a better plan)” Bike lanes improve traffic, every single study on this indicates that. You are simply wrong about what causes traffic. It is not bikes it is cars. If you are in traffic you are the traffic. I also hope we keep reducing parking, there is far too much of it taking up valuable space in this city that would be better used for housing, green space, and space for safe travel for bikes and pedestrians.
Demanding the city stop building and remove all bike lanes, which is what Hanratty and Pickett actually tried to do, is absolutely not “a better plan” and it is insulting to everyone else’s intelligence to pretend it is.
I look forward to you being extremely disappointed when, once again, the voters provide a clear mandate to continue the safety improvements and densification. The numbers are not on your side, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.
The wacky races are afoot. Of the two studies cited above im kind of confused. It looks like 294 residents responded to the first survey and a whopping 94% had ridden a bike recently. The second cited survey had about 2500 respondents and 47% said they had never ridden a bike in Cambridge and 46% said they’d like more bike lanes. Neither of these studies seem conclusive. I do think the lawsuits were dumb but you’d have to know the people involved and have a drop of empathy to understand/tolerate it. I understand the cycle bro-force isn’t interested in that. However bike lanes and the weird pledges people are being
asked to sign are definitely not the only issue. We have the worst city council I’ve ever experienced and only a handful of reasonable and qualified
people. Say what you want about Joan but she is absolutely knowledgeable and qualified. I’m also interested in Doug Brown. Wilson, Winters, McGuirk, and Zusy are all qualified for the job.
I fully oppose the agenda of Cambridge Streets fro All. In my view, the pedestrian and bike safety has been moving far too slowly, and I would like to see the improvement greatly accelerated from the current pace.
Regardless, back to the article. It is good to see a wide range of candidates running for city and school council. Gives the residents a meaningful choice in policy
@PatrickWbarrett you are misrepresenting the numbers 46% were in “total agreement” Another 14% are mostly in agreement (4/5 on the scale) so I guess 3/5ths is slightly more accurate than 2/3rds still a sizable majority. Only 22% were in “total disagreement.” It is also 51% and 13% respectively in the online version of the poll (about 2/3rds) and only 17% totally opposed.
I have no empathy for people who seek to make roads less safe for others and that kind of behavior cannot be reasonably tolerated in a civil society. Making streets more dangerous is an active threat to everyone else in the community. Given the bike lash ongoing from a loud but tiny minority and these bad faith opponents lying about their intentions, getting people to pledge not to undermine necessary bike safety improvements is hardly “weird.” It seems like a reasonable litmus test of if candidates will actually follow the clear majority of people in the city and improve safety or kowtow to special interests who want to undo them.
I agree with @taguscove, the bike improvements are happening far too slowly, people who not only want to stop that progress but also go backwards should be laughed out of the room.
“Smart” bike lanes beats “more” bike lanes very time. I’ll be supporting candidates who support bike lanes that work and engage the entire community, not just blindly vote for more more regardless of impact.
Same with housing, we need smarter housing and growth not just more housing and more growth.
I fully oppose Hanratty and Pickett and the Cambridge Streets For All Agenda.
They are lying. They claim to be for better bike lanes. The truth is that they are on record for opposing *all* bike lanes and wanting to remove them.
Bike lanes save lives. That is a fact. Opposing any and all bike lanes is callous disregard for the lives of others.
Many people, especially low-income and young people use bike for transportation. They should risk their lives to get to work?
They also oppose dedicated bus lanes. Reliable bus service is a huge help to lower-income people and seniors.
Hanratty and Pickett would have others risk their lives and deny disadvantaged people better support.
Plus, they are lying about their agenda. The last thing we need are politicians who lie to get ahead.
Slaw, agreed we need to increase safety. unfortunately, some measures are worsening safety for the city- dumping traffic onto small residential side streets to make room for bike lanes (on garden) being one example of adding risk to pedestrians while removing it for cyclists, creating bizarre and confusion traffic flow patterns (brattle) being another that add danger to drivers. We need solutions that don’t just dump the risk from one group onto another. The new infrastructure that actually improves safety should stand- the ones that worsen it should go. I dont think anyone reasonable would disagree with that.
@q99 Everything you said about bike lanes decreasing safety or increasing traffic on side streets is nonsense. You don’t have any evidence for that. Not a single shred.
Cambridge studied the effects of bike lanes on side street traffic. They caused little or no increase it side-street traffic.
Just saying things doesn’t make them true.
q99. And bike lanes have been studied extensively for many years. They *decease* not increase pedestrian accidents.
Stop spreading disinformation. Like Hanratty and Pickett you are just making stuff up.
@q99 The Federal Highway Association found that the protected bike lanes in Cambridge improve safety for all road users. Your assumptions about bike infrastructure making anyone less safe is simply wrong.
I would agree that there is room for improvement but as the FHA report suggests it is by going further with protected bike lanes, not taking any out.
Missed your comment about “smarter” bike lanes, again I support making bike lanes better. That means making them wider, more protected, and extending the protections to intersections such as the example at Inman square. Good thing the city is already doing that.
“Smarter” bike lanes also does mean more bike lanes though given their proven safety benefit and documented ability to promote a necessary mode shift by making biking accessible to people of all ages and abilities. Even places like the Netherlands who have a far more extensive bike network than we do are still building more bike lanes for those reasons.
As a side note to all this discussion of street safety, I would like to put in to the idea roster the fact that more safety for pedestrians should also be a concern….
I suffered a fall in 2021 because of poor sidewalk conditions and lack of repairs on Memorial Drive that resulted in being ambulance transported to Mount-Auburn, my first broken bones in my life (facial injury) which put my eyesight at risk on one side of my head, 14 stitches and a consultation with a plastic surgeon along with other injuries.
Having heavily foot traffic areas like the sidewalks on Memorial drive properly maintained should also be a concern along with the bike lanes.
No, the changes to garden led to hundreds more cars on Raymond a day. More cars on smaller streets leads to more risk to everyone on those streets, even if it means more safety for cyclists on the already safe Garden street.
To say there are no trade offs is ignorant and dishonest. To debate those trade offs in good faith is a good thing, but pretending all bike lanes are good for all people is a very self interested viewpoint.
Likewise Pretending parking loss has no impact on small business is dishonest as well as condescending. Ones choice to vote for bike lanes is a noble one, but Different people have different priorities, and we should not pretend there are no consequences to choices we make.
@unquietsoul, I am sorry that happened to you. Pedestrian improvements are also crucial. I am glad you aren’t pitting them against big infrastructure like some people do because many of the bike improvements have also expanded sidewalks etc. I agree pedestrians also need to be prioritized far more. Several of the new bike installations have also added an improved space and crossings for pedestrians, Inman square is a great example.
@Q99 That claim doesn’t seem to actually correspond to the data I see on the city website. It also isn’t uncommon for traffic to be slightly worse immediately after a project before people make adjustments to use it. The city also says that specifically:
“When significant changes are made to traffic patterns, it can take three to six months for drivers to adjust to new routes. We are still seeing road users learning and making adjustments. This is mostly from people outside of the neighborhood who came to the area infrequently or that are newly returning to the area after COVID-19 office re-openings. People unfamiliar with the area tend to make peculiar choices in response to road changes, and we are still in the settle-in period, without a full picture of what the fully developed effects will be.”
This is a common phenomenon and I assume the result will be similar to what has happened elsewhere, the traffic caused by confusion over changes will eventually evaporate when the confusion does. I suggest googling “traffic evaporation” it is a well documented phenomenon. The city also has a plan to address this concern see: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2022/gardenst/postinstallationdata/033023gardenstreetsafetyimprovementprojcetlocaltrafficanalysis.pdf (they have recently installed no left turn signs which is one of their recommendations to reduce the use of Raymond as a cut through.
“even if it means more safety for cyclists on the already safe Garden street.” Garden street was firmly in the cities list of high crash corridors before the installation. According to the city data there were 3 pedestrians and 4 bicyclists taken to the hospital after being hit by cars on that street in just the 3 years before installation. Also while the city acknowledges “there are likely more crashes than the 19 shown in the presentation, as we only have data from reported crashes (calls to the Cambridge Police Department), not ones that resulted in the two parties handling the crash repercussions privately” every single person recorded as hit was taken to the hospital. That is a far higher rate of significant injury than is common and suggests dangerous speeds and traffic patterns. It definitely was not a safe street for bicycling before this.
“pretending all bike lanes are good for all people is a very self interested viewpoint.” That is pretty much the position that the Federal Highway Administration took after reviewing Cambridge’s bike lanes. What self-interest do they have in claiming that? Bike lanes reduce crossing distance and add protections for pedestrians while crossing, they reduce traffic by moving more people more efficiently than general travel lanes, they truly are a win-win, including for drivers. There are lots of studies all over the world on this if the Cambridge example isn’t enough for some reason.
“Likewise Pretending parking loss has no impact on small business is dishonest as well as condescending.” What is your evidence for this claim of a negative impact? Every single study on the effect of bike lanes shows that the impact they have on local businesses is positive. See for example this recent study in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954
The anecdotes of a few business owners doesn’t supersede actual data that contradicts them. There is a study being done in Cambridge now, I am fairly sure we will see similar results to the studies elsewhere. But perhaps we should wait for the actual results before claiming impacts without evidence?
“To say there are no trade offs is ignorant and dishonest” the trade offs you claim are not supported by the evidence. It is possible in certain situations there are trade offs but you have not provided any evidence of that actually being the case here.
If there are trade offs of slightly less convenient parking and temporarily increased traffic on side streets those are more than worthwhile in my opinion. Neither of those should take precedence over the preservation of human life. For example the Netherlands spends about 500 million on bike infrastructure a year but saves tens of billions in health costs because of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/world/europe/bicycling-utrecht-dutch-love-bikes-worlds-largest-bike-parking-garages.html
q99 1. Concerning the whole “hundreds of cars” claim on side streets due to bike lanes, you did not mention any evidence.
In fact, Cambridge and other cities have studied this. It is a myth. Bike lanes do *not* increase side street traffic. The side street traffic near bike lanes is similar to traffic in side streets without nearby bike lanes.
2. Multiple studies have shown that bike lanes don’t negatively impact businesses. That is another myth.
In fact, studies show that bike lanes have positive effects on businesses. By creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment and attracting additional foot traffic, bike lanes can be beneficial.
When discussing bike lanes or anything, it’s important to stick to verifiable facts and credible sources.
Making informed decisions and avoiding misinformation are crucial for productive discussions.
Being ignorant of evidence, making things up, and expecting others to accept them as facts is dishonest and condescending.
Q99 Evidence for you.
For Store Owners, Bike Lanes Boost the Bottom Line
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line
And here is a quote from a transportation scientist:
“Any inconvenience (from bike lanes) is often made up by the added bicycle and pedestrian traffic generated by the improved vitality of the neighborhood, making it more attractive to those who want to linger and stroll in a safe streetscape.
This is why business owners who are initially against bike lanes typically change their attitudes after the bike lanes are built.”
https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2022/04/07/opinion-why-do-people-oppose-creating-bike-lanes-indianola-avenue/7242916001/
For example, businesses on streets in NYC saw a 45% *increase* in sales after bike lanes were installed.
Cambridge business owners lost their lawsuit over the bike lanes because they *failed* to provide evidence that the bike lanes were causing harm. That’s because they are not.
It is really important to consider facts and evidence. Making informed decisions and avoiding misinformation are crucial for productive discussions.
@unquietsoul Sounds like an awful experience :( A few things to note:
1. Memorial Drive is under DCR (i.e. state) control and they have vague plans to improve it, someday, sometime, maybe, maybe not… And the city doesn’t have much leverage.
2. Most bike lane projects at the moment are quickbuild: mostly just flexposts and paint and signs, with just resurfacing on roads. So it’s cheap and quick, but also limited in what they change. They do however make some pedestrian improvements in almost every bike lane project, e.g. this summer they’re adding pedestrian refuge islands on Brattle St and doing some sidewalk and ADA ramp reconstruction on Hampshire St. And they always try to improve light timing and crosswalk angles and the like for pedestrians.
3. When the City does full road reconstruction, e.g. River St or Inman St, they will completely redo the sidewalks, but that happens only rarely because it’s an expensive and disruptive multi-year process.
@ Williard
You said it perfectly:” I have never heard people so angry about the state of the city- the traffic mess, the wasted money, the poorly designed housing projects, the rats, the decimation of trees, the decline in schools, the empty store fronts. ”
@ q99 Well said.
As far as bikes, let’s think about this:” The statistics show that 26.4% of the people in Cambridge going to their jobs take cars,
and 6.8% ride their bikes.”
@Slaw, Itamar Turner-Trauring and AvgJoe. Is that a good number, or am I making it up?
That statistic is true. But out of context it is meaningless.
Why it is out of context:
1) 26.4 is still a minority, why should they get the vast majority of the road space on all streets?
2) The number of bicyclists grows every year and 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. “The Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Division maintains 125 miles of streets” That is only including city owned roads not ones owned by the state so the actual road milage is greater. Once the bike ordinance requirements are complete (and they aren’t yet) there will be 25 miles of protected bike lanes. Bikes therefore are already out performing the amount of road millage they are allotted as a mode in terms of mode share. On the flip side bikes are not given proportional road space according to the current mode share, and that is saying nothing of the desired mode share.
4) Bike lanes take up less space than car lanes in general and have a greater capacity at the same time so if you want to improve traffic for those who do need to drive, bike lanes also make it better for drivers. It also means less space needs to be paved to move the same or even greater numbers of people.
To earlier comments re the city survey, they called me on my cell, not landline. I don’t remember what caller ID was, but something that made me actually answer. I’m a 40s CPS parent with a cyclist spouse I would like to make sure survives their daily commute… & I really hope these protected lanes on Mass Ave get built in time for my oldest kid to use them to get to CRLS in a couple years.
I will be ranking anti-bikelane candidates dead last!
@concerned43 What @Slaw said.
Bike lanes increase overall street safety, benefiting pedestrians and not just a minority. Drivers are the minority in Cambridge
The statistics you provided are misleading and out of context because it just considers commuting.
People use bikes for various transportation purposes, including students who are not considered commuters.
It’s essential to consider the context behind statistics before citing them.
Research shows that bike lanes improve safety for all road users, including pedestrians and drivers. Prioritizing a few extra parking spots should not come at the cost of risking lives and losing family members.
I live close to Garden street and ride it on my bike. I also feel it is now safe for my son to ride on his bike. Thank you, city council and bike safety ordnance! As far as the new council elections: we are in a planetary climate crisis. Any transportation method that does not emit greenhouse gases makes the human survival slightly more likely. So this is why I will only vote for the candidates who pledge to continue the important work of making our entire city safe to travel by bike and foot.
@bahmutov +1
I’ll vote for candidates prioritizing safety over personal convenience, supporting efforts to make our streets safer and promoting sustainable transportation without burning fossil fuels.
This summer’s heat underscores the need for change. Some candidates, like Hanratty and Pickett, focus solely on maintaining the status quo and removing bike lanes.
Instead, I’ll support progressive candidates committed to addressing real issues, not the ‘Road Rage Candidates’.
The bike lanes on Cambridge St are way to large. Thursday an ambulance, police and fire engine were stuck because traffic was so backed up. I hope the person made it to the hospital. The city of Cambridge cares more about bikes than people.
“The bike lanes on Cambridge St are way too large.” No they are not. They are barely wide enough for faster riders to pass slower riders.
“Thursday an ambulance, police and fire engine were stuck because traffic was so backed up.” sounds like those driving cars were at fault not bikes taking up far less space and blocking no one in their own ROW. If you are stuck in traffic you are the traffic.
“I hope the person made it to the hospital. The city of Cambridge cares more about bikes than people.” sounds like you care more about cars than people, given the proven safety benefits of bike lanes, and how you are blaming bikes in a situation clearly caused by cars.
Bike lanes help keep people safe an out of the hospital. The dutch spend 500 million on bike infrastructure a year but save tens of billions in. health costs because of it.
What a joke. Drivers are the minority in Cambridge? Anyone who truly wanted Cambridge “people to be heard” on the bike-lane issue would have put it on a referendum, rather than be bullied by condescending name-calling shouters.