There have been resets on studying the economic effects of Cambridge bike-lane installations and on outreach to the public when a bike-lane project gets underway, city staff and consultants said in July meetings.
The economic study frustrating business owners in May now has the Volpe National Transportation Center aboard as a consultant and new data sources in place, the center’s Sean Pierce said at a July 17 economic impact study information session for the Cycling Safety Ordinance. The 2019 law calls for nearly 25 miles of protected lanes citywide.
The study runs for six years, though the law calls for most lanes in the network to be built by April 30, 2026, with possible extensions to Aug. 31, 2028. Results from the first year of the study are expected this fall, said Pardis Saffari, the city’s director of economic opportunity and development.
With the overlapping installation of bus lanes, which also replaced parking spaces, and factors such as Covid, some caution around results were signaled by Pierce and Saffari.
“In transportation we don’t have randomized control trials, and life is messy. Projects happen when they happen, and sometimes there are other projects nearby, or two projects intersect,” Pierce said. While the Cambridge study will stand alone, such studies usually “find relatively small changes either way – sometimes slightly positive, sometimes basically neutral, sometimes slightly negative on automobile-oriented businesses. And one of the themes is that it’s difficult to separate the changes that you you see from broader macroeconomic trends and other things going on in the city.”
While business owners worry that less parking means fewer customers, it’s not clear that’s true: Pierce noted that “from some of the studies [in other cities], maybe somewhat counterintuitively, retail sales don’t seem to be very strongly affected by parking.” Though other cities’ results cannot say for sure what will occur in Cambridge, they can be useful predictive tools, he said.
To assess bike lanes’ effect on retail and purchasing, the study will monitor cellphone location data, collaborating with location data company SafeGraph to estimate the amount of money spent at each location. This method lacks the accuracy of collecting local tax data or register receipt data, but the city and Volpe were unable to reach an agreement either with state government or with point-of-sale providers, even locally bases businesses such as Toast, Pierce and Saffari said.
Accounting for gaps
The study will also track more indirect measures: real estate, because “the value of urban real estate reflects its location and accessibility,” Pierce said, as well as employment and wage data, known as longitudinal employer household dynamics data, which is taken from the census.
All sources have gaps and limitations the study will have to account for, Pierce said. While in recent months as much attention has been put on medical offices and other services as on retail, much of the hard data becoming available will look only at sales.
In the meantime, surveys have gone out to business owners – some were complete as of the July 17 session – and the city plans follow-ups to ensure a good sampling of responders. The most eager to take part “may be people who have a particular kind of strong policy perspective on this, so we’re doing our best to kind of mitigate those biases,” Pierce said.
Business owners are also being invited to send more detailed data, Pierce said. Some testified in past meetings to having rich records of losses when the lanes were installed, and to being upset no one from the city was looking at them.
Advisory group improves outreach
Improving public outreach and community feedback was also a theme for a Cycling Safety Ordinance Advisory Group meeting held July 25, where members acknowledged limitations to earlier outreach efforts.
Harvard Square Business Association executive director Denise Jillson said that, for example, when changes in the design of Garden Street and Concord Avenue resulted in “complete outcry from the neighborhood,” the city response “was basically, the design is designed and regardless of outcry, we’re not changing anything.”
The group’s capacity for outreach is greater now, transportation commissioner Brooke McKenna said. “This was one of our earlier projects, so we have really learned along the way,” she said, referring the 2021 mid-Massachusetts Avenue project. “The Covid aspect was pretty challenging as well. We were just learning to do online meetings.”
The process for road space allocation was detailed by the Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department’s Stephen Meuse, a street design project manager, and Elise Harmon-Freeman, its communications manager. It begins with mathematical considerations based mainly on federal regulations: A street must be at least 43 feet wide to be able to accommodate a bike lane and one lane of parking, or 48 feet for a bike lane and two lanes of parking. Individual conditions – such as the presence of bus routes or trucks – can demand more width.
Advisers will walk the avenue
Since the Cycling Safety Ordinance mandates bike lanes in certain areas, the majority of the decision-making centers around whether and how to provide street parking. It’s not merely a matter of providing the maximum amount of parking spaces; city staff also considers where to place them to improve convenience. For example, one side of the street may have more space, but the other side may have the businesses residents tend to drive to. “Sometimes that does lead to fewer spaces being provided, but they’re in better spots that are more useful,” Meuse said.
Rather than “floating” between bike and driving lanes, Meuse said, some types of parking such as bus stops and accessible spaces must be directly next to the curb. Additionally, many businesses require frequent use of loading and delivery vehicles.
Transportation staff are now customizing outreach “based on that mix of residential and business corridors,” McKenna said. “We try to have one-on-one contacts.”
Outreach is focused primarily on Main Street, where staff is conducting a survey about various design options through September; and the $50 million Massachusetts Avenue partial reconstruction project, for which a Working Group for the Mass Ave Partial Reconstruction Project held a first walk along affected portions from 3 to 5 p.m. Thursday, discussing design possibilities based on travel pattern observations. The walk from Porter Square to Waterhouse Street near Harvard Square is open to the public and sets off from the red windmill sculpture at Porter Station, 1899 Massachusetts Ave.
Bike lane updates
A two-way bike lane from Harvard Square to Mount Auburn Street is in place, Harmon-Freeman said, and temporary cones marking it will be replaced with concrete curbs in the coming weeks. On Hampshire Street, a sidewalk reconstruction compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act is in progress, as is the addition of metered parking spaces. Huron Avenue is also getting curb and sidewalk reconstruction.
This post was updated Aug. 3, 2023, to correct the attribution of two quotes, and Aug. 4, 2023, to correct the name of Elise Harmon-Freeman and Huron Avenue, title of Brooke McKenna, information about a walk of Massachusetts Avenue and length of time a survey will be available.
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.
I think you forgot to say who “Hughes” was in the first usage of their name.
>> Rather than “floating” between bike and driving lanes, Hughes said, some types of parking such as bus stops and accessible spaces must be directly next to the curb
I’ve seen several places in the region with a bike lane that’s routed behind a bus stop. It works great and eliminates conflict between buses and bikes. What’s the reasoning for having them directly next to the curb?
Maybe it’s that they can’t be done as part of a quickbuild project with paint and flex posts? The bus stop has to be at curb *level*, which would mean moving curbs and routing the bike lane up onto the curb-height pavement behind the bus shelter.
I think in general a lot of these projects will be much better when the city has time to come in and move curbs and do at least a partial reconstruction. Unfortunately, the best time for that was many years ago (the first oil crisis in the 1970s!). The second best time is starting now.
And in the meantime we can live with less-than-optimal paint and flexpost projects while the reconstruction happens to the standards that should have been in place 50 years ago to prioritize transit and cycling over driving.
“Rather than “floating” between bike and driving lanes, Meuse said, some types of parking such as bus stops and accessible spaces must be directly next to the curb.” There is a simple and elegant solution to this that you see all over Europe. Put the bike lane behind the bus stop/curb access.
There is already an example in Cambridge in Inman square. Unfortunately google maps hasn’t updated street view but you can see it under construction if you look there.
There is also an example for accessible access rather than a bus station with a similar bike treatment in front of Fenway Health in Boston. Also unfortunately not on street view yet.
This preserves curb access for transit and personal accessibility while also creating safer bike routes.
Wait? A transportation expert says that bike lanes don’t destroy businesses?? That’s not what amateurs like Joan Pickett, Hanratty, and the people on NextDoor say.
Hmm, maybe the expert knows what he is talking
about.
Go down garden street in sept oct nov.
It screams “experts” did this! lmao
@prc Last I checked, there were no businesses on Garden St.
Maybe you should go down Garden St and see for yourself. 🤣
2 crashes involving cyclists happen on same street in Cambridge 11 minutes apart.
At 8:43 a.m. at the intersection of Appleton Street and Brattle Street, a bicyclist allegedly neglected to stop at a stop sign and collided with the driver’s side of a car, according to the police report.
The experts are back!
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/03/two-bicycle-crashes-cambridge-brattle-street-11-minutes/?p1=hp_featurestack
Imagine a world where it’s possible to hire experts who agree with your point of view and “your facts”!
No belowavgjoe just people trying to raise families, get back and forth to work you know live life. The neighbors of garden st overwhelming love it 😉
Let’s get the experts to do Linnaean next lol
@prc
As I said a week ago, Brattle St. is an accident waiting to happen. Surprised it happened this soon.
It’s a mess. During the day, it is difficult to follow the twists and turns that are marked on the street. At night, it is next to impossible. The only good thing about that is that after dark, there are almost no bikes.
As soon as the concrete curbs come in to separate the bike lane, there are going to be a lot more accidents on Brattle. And because there is parking only on one side of the street, those who want to get across Brattle to the North side, are facing oncoming cars in both directions. And… the cars are moving at high speeds because Brattle has become a free for all in terms of excessive speeds.
Question. During a snow storm, who is in charge of clearing off the bike lanes?
But C43 the “experts” designed and built it! A friend was visiting and drove there. Thankfully I was in the passenger seat because he pulled into the bike lane to drive in it!
I think there are a a makeshift sign now but my goodness its as if middle school children designed these messes.
Ps the city bought some bobcats to plow them. Super efficient!
“The only good thing about that is that after dark, there are almost no bikes.” As much as you pretend to care about safety for bicycling, you tip off to your true intentions with this.
“As soon as the concrete curbs come in to separate the bike lane, there are going to be a lot more accidents on Brattle.” This is a bold claim to make and contradicts all evidence. Lots of cities have two way bicycle tracks on one side of the street. MTL for example has dozens of them. They work well, especially after drivers (who are the safety risk here) become used to them and know to look both ways before crossing them. Drivers in MTL and other places like the France where this design is common do seem to get it. The more of them we build the faster we get there.
” And because there is parking only on one side of the street, those who want to get across Brattle to the North side, are facing oncoming cars in both directions.” How does the lack of parking on both sides create that
“And… the cars are moving at high speeds because Brattle has become a free for all in terms of excessive speeds.” How is this the fault of the bike lane? That was also happening before it was put in and there should be less space to speed now than before. That is one of the complaints drivers make about this. So this complaint feels like kettle logic.
“During a snow storm, who is in charge of clearing off the bike lanes?” the city.
You said:”That was also happening before it was put in and there should be less space to speed now than before. ” Reality says something different. Go and see what is happening on Brattle. Frustration with the obstacle course.
The accident referred to happened at a busy corner. This is nothing compared to what is going to happen at the most dangerous part of the street.
By the Holy Trinity Armenian Church, Brattle, Craigie and Sparks come together. There are no traffic lights. It has been a very dangerous intersection for those walking, on bikes and in cars; many accidents. The bike lane is designed poorly, but who are we to argue with the design experts. In fact, that intersection should be a roundabout. Unfortunately, lots of accidents are coming.
@Slaw You said:” ” And because there is parking only on one side of the street, those who want to get across Brattle to the North side, are facing oncoming cars in both directions. How does the lack of parking on both sides create that.”
If you had parking on the North side as well as the South, people wouldn’t need to cross Brattle to get to the North side. That seems like common sense to me, but evidently not to you.
Then you said: “The only good thing about that is that after dark, there are almost no bikes.” As much as you pretend to care about safety for bicycling, you tip off to your true intentions with this.”
You have no idea about what my intentions are,
so don’t tell me what you think they are.
Slaw, we want safety. But, this entire bike safety
approach has not been well thought out.
So is it a frustrating “obstacle course” (implying it slows cars down) or are cars moving at high speeds in a free for all (implying it dangerously speeds cars up)? Because as I already said claiming both makes no sense. Kettle logic.
“The accident referred to happened at a busy corner. This is nothing compared to what is going to happen at the most dangerous part of the street.” Intersections are the most dangerous part of the street.
” There are no traffic lights.” Traffic lights dont always make intersections safer. the Dutch for example are replacing many lights with stop signs because the eye contract and interpersonal negotiations of stop signs promote more safety, awareness, and slower speeds rather than assuming “its green so it must be clear for me to go” even if it may not actually be.
“The bike lane is designed poorly, but who are we to argue with the design experts” what is your actual issue with the design because “too wide” is not a substantive complaint as the FHA study points out wider bike lanes are safer (they also show concrete curbs also make them safer despite your other claims above).
“In fact, that intersection should be a roundabout.” I don’t disagree and I doubt the city does either, however that will require a full reconstruction and not a quick build project. One of the many examples where the building of bike infrastructure actually needs to go further.
“If you had parking on the North side as well as the South, people wouldn’t need to cross Brattle to get to the North side. That seems like common sense to me, but evidently not to you.” Well common sense is often wrong and this is a great example. You assume you can always park on the side you want, which is clearly not the case. What actually happens with parking on both sides is that people need to cross in both directions (people parked on the south side who need to get to the north side and people on the north side who need to get to the south side), so the number of crossings would likely actually increase.
“You have no idea about what my intentions are,
so don’t tell me what you think they are.” You are very clearly playing the classic bike lash game of “I ride a bicycle but… [classic and dogmatic opposition to bike infrastructure that anyone who actually bikes knows to be nonsense]” It is incredibly transparent.
@concerned43, which design would you have implemented to provide separated bike lanes here? There are only a few workable choices:
1) Two-way cycle track (implemented): this has the upside of less parking loss in the 2nd phase, where the road is slightly wider, but the downside of more turning conflict for cars which are not yet accustomed to expect bikes traveling in both directions.
2) One-way bike lanes on each side of the street: this would have avoided some turning conflict that is present in the two-way cycle track, but would have resulted in more parking loss, and would have required a parking-protected bike lane where the road is wide enough to fit parking.
3) Sidewalk bike lanes: this would have been a highly impactful, lengthy, and costly construction project which would have required re-building the sidewalks and drainage on one or both sides (depending on whether it is one or two-way).
Is there a workable separated alternative that I’m missing here? Which one would you have selected? Doing nothing is not an option.
As I said, the most dangerous intersection on Brattle is where it meets Craigie and Sparks. Why would any “expert consultant”, assuming there
was a consultant on this project, put a bike lane on the North Side of Brattle, rather than the South side? At that intersection, those bikers, going into the Square, are unprotected and are heading directly into traffic from Brattle and Craigie.
Additionally, cars approaching Brattle from Sparks, often fail to stop when crossing Brattle or making a right turn. If the bike lanes were on the South side of the street, bikers would not face any oncoming traffic at that intersection. What were the people, who designed the bike lanes, thinking?
The same goes for the second most dangerous intersection, Appleton and Brattle. If the bike lane had been put on the South side, there would be no dangerous intersection. Appleton is a street with a great amount of traffic. The streets on the South side e.g. Hubbard Park, not very much traffic.
My point is… does anyone think of these things? This is common sense, and that is the problem with much of what the city has done with bike lanes…in too many cases, lack of common sense.
“At that intersection, those bikers, going into the Square, are unprotected and are heading directly into traffic from Brattle and Craigie.” Truly what are you talking about? Lets take a look at the city plans, which have recently been implemented: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2022/brattlest/brattlest_phase2_rollplot_medium01.jpg
Craigie now has a modal filter that created a perpendicular intersection with Brattle and the bike lane. This is considerably safer than the shallow angle that existed before. There also is physical separation at that intersection meaning that no bikes are not heading directly into traffic as you claim.
“Additionally, cars approaching Brattle from Sparks, often fail to stop when crossing Brattle or making a right turn.” The city is planning to relocate that stop sign soon to make it more visible.
” If the bike lanes were on the South side of the street, bikers would not face any oncoming traffic at that intersection.” Bikes do not face any oncoming traffic in the current design. If the bike lanes were on the south side cars would assume they have the right of way through the intersection and plow through. If, as you say, cars ignore the stop sign and bike lane when the bike lane is right in front of the sign, no way are they more likely to honor it after already entering the intersection. Sparks street is a through street cars must cross the bike lane regardless, it is better for them to stop immediately before it rather than be picking up speed into it.
You also aren’t actually clear about what you want here, you claim 2 directional lanes on one side are dangerous but now seem to be calling for them but simply on the other side of the street. Again this seems like kettle logic.
” Appleton is a street with a great amount of traffic. The streets on the South side e.g. Hubbard Park, not very much traffic.” What numbers are you basing this claim on?
“This is common sense, and that is the problem with much of what the city has done with bike lanes…in too many cases, lack of common sense.” I would prefer that actual data and analysis govern street design not common sense, which is often wrong (especially when it comes to assumptions about street design).
The link didn’t work for me. I guess the little man inside my computer didn’t like it.
But, regardless. I give up. You win.
You always manage to come back saying I said something which I didn’t e.g. the fifth paragraph. Or, e.g. Hubbard Park, asking for numbers that don’t exist. But if you knew the area and the way the street runs, which clearly you don’t, you wouldn’t even bother to ask for numbers.
In a few years, we’ll see how Brattle, and other streets, work out.
By the way, if you are going to use the word spurious, learn to use it properly.
Bye!
The word was “specious” you used it first saying my point that: 26.4 is still a minority, why should they get the majority of the road space on all streets? “is specious.” There is nothing specious about that; it is literally true and a reasonable question you never answered.
There is however absolutely something superficially plausible but actually wrong (aka specious) about your claims that “Cars are not a minority for those using the. roads,” (despite again being only 26.4% of road users), that “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” (which you asserted was a statistic but never provided a source), and that “The roads handle two types of traffic, aside from a few busses. There are bike riders and there are cars” (despite bus riders outnumbering both on many streets).
I have put no words in your mouth I have responded to the arguments you made with evidence (something you have not provided for any claim you have made). If you don’t like hearing your own words repeated back to you maybe you should pick better ones?
Whatever.
@Slaw +1.
The city reports more bikes than cars on busy streets, and buses transport up to 50% during peak hours.
However, some assume everyone drives. Picture 40 bus passengers versus 40 cars, or 12 cyclists compared to 12 cars at a red light.
Drivers are the minority; they shouldn’t dominate the street.