Why council candidates should commit to a safer bike network
For several election cycles, Cambridge Bicycle Safety has encouraged City Council candidates to sign our pledge to support the buildout of a protected bike network. Since the Cycling Safety Ordinance was passed in 2019, we have asked candidates to commit to the implementation of a safer bike network following a timeline. The pledge is an important tool for voters because it asks candidates to commit to following through if elected, which is democracy in action. The CSO itself has a lot of flexibility built in, which has been demonstrated as its projects have been designed and changed with stakeholder feedback. Lastly, the pledge only addresses one aspect of a candidate’s platform.
In a representative democracy, such as we have in Cambridge, citizens vote for candidates who will carry out their wishes. The Massachusetts Constitution even gives us the right to “give instructions to [our] representatives.” This system assumes the citizens know what candidates will actually do, though. Without a pledge, candidates are free to say they support safe bike infrastructure in theory but, once in office, happen to oppose every project presented to them. The pledge is simply a clear statement of plans, allowing Cambridge citizens who care about the bike network to vote for candidates who will make sure it is built out.
The CSO lays out a timeline for building the protected bike network. It is important to have a timeline so the city plans and budgets for making it actually happen. It does not mandate the exact design or even the means of protection. In fact, the ordinance leaves open some possibilities for swapping the order of projects so long as the yearly mileage is met, and allows the city to opt for reconstruction projects that provide more time to complete individual segments. Each project includes multiple rounds of community meetings and design updates. For instance, in response to community feedback, accessible parking spaces were added to the Massachusetts Avenue project, and Garden Street was converted into a one-way street for car traffic to preserve more parking spaces at the request of neighbors. Often, especially with quick-build projects, there is tweaking after installation to better meet the needs of the community.
The pledge asks candidates only to support the CSO as one part of their platform. Signers of the pledge often have very different views on housing or different priorities, such as education and police reform. Thus, the pledge only guides a small portion of the successful candidate’s actions in office.
Cambridge citizens deserve to know if they are voting for candidates who will commit to expanding our network of safer bike lanes. Cambridge Bicycle Safety’s voter guide lays out who has made this commitment. The pledge does not hem in candidates inflexibly, because the CSO itself is flexible and candidates are pledging only about one aspect of their platforms. Cambridge’s bike network is gaining national attention, and we think every candidate should be proud to prioritize the safety of their constituents.
Amanda Sindel-Keswick, Cornelius Way
The writer is a volunteer with Cambridge Bicycle Safety.
I am proud of our current city council for supporting the CSO and following through with implementation. Our city’s bike network is getting better but still has a long way to go. I still regularly talk to people who are confident enough to cycle around the city but wish they could, instead of dealing with endless traffic, parking, and a creaking slow transit system. I am also looking at my expertly riding five year old and trying to find the courage to let him ride with me on the streets. A protected cycling network that connects to itself across the city with protected intersections would be a great boon to many people.
>> candidates are free to say they support safe bike infrastructure in theory but, once in office, happen to oppose every project presented to them
This is not a hypothetical. This was the reality of pre-CSO bicycling safety projects. “Sensible” bike lanes and asking for “more study” are ways of saying no without saying no.
In near total agreement with the Ms. Sindel-Keswick. As candidate for office I cannot sign the pledge. It commits councilors to uphold an agreement beyond their jurisdiction and in the hands of the city manager. Milestones, deadlines, yearly mileage…all in the manager’s hands.
I bike everywhere. I use the lanes. I hear the pushback from businesses and pedestrians. Everyone on our thoroughfares has a right to be heard. A “Courteous in Cambridge” initiative will go far in reducing the vitriol on the Ave. and elsewhere. Simply put: signage reminding us to share the road plants the thought in our mind.
A more complete transportation plan, below, taken from my campaign platform page.
Thank you!
Federico Muchnik
http://www.federicoforcouncil.net/platform
– Better balance the use of public ways so that pedestrians, cyclists, cars, and buses share the road safely and effectively.
– Educate the public with rules of the road signage through a Courteous in Cambridge campaign.
– Make Cambridge a 10-minute city where pedestrians can easily access their needs from any part of the city on foot in ten minutes.
– Convert a selection of Quick Build bike lanes into permanent paths for cyclists and add not more than three metered parking spaces per side street.
– Simplify the obstacle course look and feel that our main thoroughfares have become. Consider the needs of businesses, particularly those patronized by the elderly and physically challenged.
– The way mass transit will succeed is to make it free. Establish a city-funded bus service. Current MBTA buses are too big for the type of city Cambridge is becoming. Remove the bus lanes and implement more agile, easy to maneuver around electric, half-sized shuttle buses while doubling the fleet.
– Where residents are short on parking spaces, implement car-share electric vehicles for short distance, city-wide travel. For example: public housing residents gain access to EV’s through a subsidized resident-based sharing plan.
Pledges such as this are typical of the extremist ideological politics that infect our system, both nationally and locally. We all want safer streets for bikes, and we’ve made huge strides in this area. But we need Councillors and other leaders who will think carefully about implementation, making sure we balance costs and benefits at each step, and eschewing simplistic rhetoric
Is it possible for a councilor to be 100% for bike safety but also not want to sign a pledge?
I’ve noticed that you endorsed Dan Totten who has vocalized support for Hamas, is a DSA member who have also supported Hamas. Dan has also invited violence in Cambridge as recently as last week against an Israeli company in Central Sq. Dan has also attacked just about every group in the city including but not limited local businesses, the cambridge police, referred to an lgbtqia+ candidate from Somerville as being transphobic (he actually accuses almost everyone of this), referred to Mass Dems LGBTQ+ caucus as being homophobic, called Kendall Sq “the most imperialist square mile on the planet,” and called the Catholic Church a “truly evil institution,” he also complained about autism awareness campaign in Harvard Sq for some reason.
However he signed a pledge to do the thing you want so it’s all good?
Are you saying just so long as a candidate will sign the pledge you do not care what else they stand for?
Sumbul Siddiqui was accused by eight women in her office of harassment but that too is not a problem so long as a pledge has been signed?
On the pledge itself; We all agree that bike safety is really important but signing a pledge and bike safety aren’t exactly the same thing. Even harder to agree when you’ve endorsed a psychotic like Totten and someone who is likely to be sued for harassment; eight people coming out is a lot (to paraphrase an old friend).
In the spirit of the article it would be important to amend the bike safety ordinance to require prioritization of lanes based on bike use. Also a budget and public process should be articulated and transparent. Also we do not need to call these “ transportation infrastructure projects” when they are part of the BSO mandate. That is a bit misleading. I was under the impression that housing was our priority is that now no longer the case? Is it in the pledge to follow up with post implementation transportation studies and utilization studies?
Federico Muchnik you really spread a lot of nonsense on here but “Current MBTA buses are too big for the type of city Cambridge is becoming” is especially nonsensical. the exact benefit of public transit is the ability to carry more people in less space. Smaller vehicles with less capacity reduces that benefit. See the work of Jarrett Walker for more about the basic geometry of transit: https://humantransit.org
Peter G: What exactly is “extremist” about pledging not to undermine the existing law supported by a sizable majority of the voters.
“We all want safer streets for bikes”
This is clearly false given there are a number of candidates this year who literally sued the city to remove all protected bike lanes despite the Federal Highway Administration proving they significantly improved bike safety.
@PatrickWBarrett “I’ve noticed that you endorsed Dan Totten who has vocalized support for Hamas, is a DSA member who have also supported Hamas.” This is an outright lie. Seemingly an attempt to distract from your own favored candidate’s extreme Islamophobic bigotry.
“Dan has also invited violence in Cambridge as recently as last week against an Israeli company in Central Sq” He did not incite violence and this is verging on libelous. However an Israeli weapons company that also provides bio-metric technology for US border patrol, and arms outright genocidal campaigns in Armenia, Myanmar, and The Philippines, plus other violent oppression in Honduras, Brazil, and the US to say nothing of the genocide ongoing in Gaza in which it is more than complicit, has no place in Cambridge.
“called Kendall Sq ‘the most imperialist square mile on the planet,’” This is pretty hard to argue with when you look at the confluence of weapons contractors, defense research, and private security firms there.
“and called the Catholic Church a ‘truly evil institution,'” Again, where is the lie?
“Is it in the pledge to follow up with post implementation transportation studies and utilization studies?” Those are already happening. Again the FHA demonstrated they improve bike safety: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf
There is also a lot of evidence that building safe bike infrastructure increases the number of people riding. I have linked you these before so I am not going to track them down for you again when you clearly are more interested in repeating your talking points than anything else.
We need to get away from the reductive, either/or characterizations used by special interest groups during this election season.
It is not simply a question of people being for or against bike safety — no one plans to “rip out the bike lanes” as CBS like to claim.
Everyone is for safer streets and a better transportation infrastructure, it is a matter of how those goals are achieved and in the case of the “bike pledge” a question of possible conflict of interest. Our City Councillors make an oath to serve all of Cambridge equally — does pledging to serve one specific constituency, a rigid construction plan, and a strict timeline not conflict with that oath? At the very least it hog-ties Councillors as they face many complex and expensive issues in the face of a declining MBTA?
Equally, in the case of affordable housing — the recently passed AHO2 is but one means to achieve Cambridge’s affordable housing goals. To support modifications to AHO2 does not make someone a NIMBY nor anti-progressive. We need more affordable housing for our essential workers, our young families, our seniors and all income levels. AHO2 may not be the best tool to achieve those goals — but it certainly unleashes the builders.
Cambridge residents need to study the facts and not be taken in by the gaslighting going on. There is too much divisiveness and mis-direction in US politics — Cambridge must not succumb to those tactics.
Slaw,
You’re an anonymous person posting on a hyper local blog. Unmask yourself or simply stop posting.
“It is not simply a question of people being for or against bike safety — no one plans to “rip out the bike lanes” as CBS like to claim.”
Except, you know, the people suing to do exactly that.
“Everyone wants safer roads”… maybe most people, but I think there is a significant subsection that is willing to put convenience (parking, ability to drive 25+ mph) above safety concerns at the margin.
Moreover, it isn’t completely but there is a degree of a zero-sum game here. There is a finite space on our roads most of which is currently dedicated to vehicle parking and lanes optimized for vehicle traffic. So even if everyone wants safer roads, what matters to me is what your vision is for how to use the scarce space. I prefer candidates that are clear in advocating for more and safer infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists.
And everything the Feds tells us is true about what is safe for us.
Political slates often “reach” or “stretch” to create perceived ideological alliances. What AHO and the CSO have in common, I will never know. As for the CSO mandate, just read it. The recent reconstruction from Aberdeen Ave. to Holworthy is an example of an ordinance gone too far. This was not a highly traveled or unsafe bike area. The Belmont line area of single-family homes is not Kendall square. Unless we had an extra $9-10 mil sitting around, the only way to explain this project is the CSO mandate. The community knows where bike travel and safety warrant the cost and compromises of these changes. The ordinance should be amended to prioritize protected bike kanes where bike volume and safety warrant it. As for a connection to the AHO – which, however imperfect, I support – the city has bonded $50 mil for North Mass Ave., and I can see another $50 mil easy in bike lane construction. As we wnter a recession and the tax implications on residents as office and lab values drop, we might want to at least be transparent about cost. Affordable housing, schools and human services are all competing financial interests. These are big projects with financial implications that should be justified and not mandated prospectively by an ordinance that successfully took the democratic process out of publics hands. The writer who calls out this polarization around bike lanes and AHO is correct. We should not have a climate of all-or-nothing, nor will that win hearts and minds of opponents.
I appreciate the level-headed comments of Mr Galluccio and Barrett, there are so many pieces of this bike lane mandate and pledge that are potentially at odds with other goals set by the council, and the human and financial costs of implementation seem to be an afterthought while absolutely lacking transparency.
If reaching the goal of a specific number of miles of lanes creates redundancy, costs us multimillions of dollars more and causes havoc with the construction projects for more housing is it really a good idea to limit flexibility? There will never be enough space in Cambridge so to promise it to certain groups while potentially putting other goals at risk is counterproductive and punishing for certain neighborhoods and more vulnerable residents. Forcing these changes within a set timetable also removes consideration and any chance for smarter design because of this all or nothing mindset.
If you want to know the reasoning behind the Huron Ave. changes you can actually look them up! https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/publicworksdepartment/Engineering/cityprojects/glackenfield/huronavecommunitypresentationpdf_2182021.pdf
The road needed to be resurfaced and improvements to sidewalks were already planned. There’s no better time to add protected bike lanes than when you are already reconstructing the street.
Patrick, many people do not feel comfortable being the subject of harassment that will sadly but inevitably come their way just for engaging in local politics in Cambridge.
If you have issues with the Day comments section, you should take it up with Marc Levy.
Better bike (and car and pedestrian) safety is needed! Blind pledges are foolish. I’ll be supporting candidates who listen to all concerned voices and come up with nuanced solutions to complex problems that are city faces, and don’t just move the car traffic onto other streets at great cost to safety, traffic, pollution, neighborliness and the city’s coffers.
Thank you Mr Galluccio. Most can’t comprehend that “funds” “money” is limited. I’ve yet to meet someone from another mass town or state that says yes 500m seems reasonable for bike lanes. Most all think it’s a mathematical error. Nope not in Cambridge.
My goodness it’s so out of touch with homelessness, hunger, drug addiction, immigration, public transportation, education etc etc.
But we now have 9-10m worth of bike lanes riding into Belmont. Just wow.
Any serious person / adult who has managed a budget knows this is not sustainable or a good use of funds. Anyways it doesn’t matter. The decision is done and the 500m is quickly being deployed and spent.
@Anthony D. Galluccio:
Belmont St. first showed up on the city’s 5-year street and sidewalk reconstruction plan in 2017, well before the CSO was passed in 2019. So this construction was going to happen anyways. But the smart thing the CSO does (and anyone who claims to care about fiscal responsibility should agree!) is that if a street that’s being reconstructed is also a part of the key routes outlined in the Bike Network Vision, then that reconstruction should incorporate separated bike lanes.
This is much better and more efficient (both in time and cost) than the street being torn up twice, once for regular reconstruction, then again to put in bike lanes.
The second point you bring up is why this area (Belmont/Mt. Auburn/Aberdeen)? I disagree quite strongly that it’s “not unsafe” and urge you to imagine (or even try) going down that road/taking that left on a bike. But also, here’s an old bike crash map where you can see this area is somehow a hotspot despite being disconnected from the heavier bike corridors: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/04/08/you-are-here-cambridge-bike-crash-map/.
However, it’s certainly true that the bike counts here are lower vs. some other areas of Cambridge. But the problem with only building lanes “where [existing] bike volume and safety warrant it” is that if an area is unsafe for bikes, people will just… not bike there. This may mean opting to drive instead (joining the traffic), or if already on bike, avoiding the area altogether. So you get a chicken and egg problem. Here’s another way to think about it: “It’s hard to justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river.”
There’s a lot of people who’d prefer cyclists stay “out of the way” and use a maze of side streets to get around. In their view, the main roads should belong to cars. But people on bikes are trying to get to the same places as everyone else! For cycling to truly become a viable alternative mode of transportation that is also accessible to a wide range of people, rather than just a recreational activity or something only the very athletic and/or intrepid will dare to do, there needs to be a network of safe routes in place that connect key destinations. This is what the CSO facilitates.
Dear “John” then don’t post. For all I know that person is a councilor, acolyte, candidate, promoter etc. It matters and a sign of good character to put your name where your words are. If you cannot do that then why bother?
Hard to believe the author has failed to disclose that she in fact is a party represented by counsel in the bicycle law suit pending. She is not just a cyclist, supporting the “oathkeepers pledge” while ignoring every other issue in the city. So many people were never at the table and that is precisely why the strong push back. Why they cannot see this amazes me. Do the cyclists believe that handicapped folks and seniors are well represented or do they simply not matter to them as seems to be the case.
In the spirit of civil discourse yes, the city adds all kinds of “ improvements “ to protected bike lane projects to make them “ more than”. However all the stretch along huron needed was a better sidewalk and multi use path. Bikers and residents at a recent meeting all agreed to as much. Again , when advocates make these issues black and white we create a clinate of tribal politics and most voters are not so prone. The project I sited is an example of just “ how can this be the priority” or in political terms picking the wrong fight. Cost notwithstanding. I have heard from users of the fields, the youth center, pedestrians , bikers, disability advocates and residents that the whole project is just unreasonable and lacks the guidance of residebts and users. Today I reveived an call that an ambulance was blocked in with no way around. There is literally no way for fire or 911 vehicles. At the meeting the city said they could fit in the bike lanes. The strategy to make these protected lanes more to give “ cover” only aggravates neighbors with the impacts of bumps and strange pieces of lost green space going unused. Again file this not under against bike lanes but lets have priorities and neighborhood input. Process with the BSO woukd be disingenuous as the annual requirement forces the city planners to install anywhere there is a “ dig up”. thanks for keeping this civil. I know there are folks on sides of these issues that dont see them as cookie cuter as manufactured slates would make one believe. I respect the. respective lobbies for nailing candidates down. Individual voters have the same power.
@MightyMouse, did you know that the CSO makes an exception to the protected bike lane requirement for accessible parking spots? And that nearly all the CSO projects to date have preserved or in several cases even increased the number of accessible parking spaces?
***
Re: the CSO being overly rigid/strict —
The op-ed clearly outlines the various forms of flexibility built into the CSO, and it’s disappointing that so many folks either are ignoring this or did not even bother to read the article, instead jumping into the same arguments as usual.
I won’t repeat the author’s points, but one thing that wasn’t specifically mentioned in the op-ed is that the CSO has multiple extension options built into the timeline that can be used if, let’s say, the city has a budget crisis (as some commenters seem to be forecasting). However, the City Manager has so far declined to take these extensions, including ones that allowed for delays due to COVID-related issues.
These extensions can be found in the CSO progress tracker here: https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/policiesordinancesandplans/cyclingsafetyordinance/requirementsandtimelines
***
Re: the CBS pledge —
When there are candidates who are involved in an active lawsuit against the city to undo the CSO bike lanes publicly stating that actually they weren’t trying to remove bike lanes*, it is clear that campaign-speak is a completely unreliable indicator of a candidate’s actual commitment to cycling safety.
* For example, candidate & plaintiff Joan Pickett says in her op-ed that “the goal of that lawsuit was not to remove all separated bike lanes,” which is directly contradicted by the text of the complaint itself stating the injunctive relief sought: “preventing [the City] from building further bike lanes, and directing it to remove existing bike lanes, and restore parking meters and loading zones”
No one is “against” bike safety in a vacuum, as folks from all sides have made clear, but as cportus points out, space is limited and it is often impossible to put in bike lanes without making other tradeoffs. Different people will weigh these tradeoffs differently, and in practice this means that certain candidates, even though supportive of bike safety in theory, will in practice let concrete improvements towards bike safety be postponed over and over again as new objections are raised (which will happen, because it is impossible to please everyone).
That’s why something like the CBS pledge is useful. It asks candidates (no one is being forced to pledge!) to take a clear and specific stance on the CSO that voters can factor into their decision-making, depending on their own stance on the CSO as well as their own priorities on various issues. I’m sure some people who oppose the CSO have even found the pledge list helpful to decide who NOT to vote for.
Finally, people seem to be getting overly hung up on terminology. Yes, it is a pledge, but that does not automatically make it extremist/reductive/militant (“Oathkeepers,” really??). The “consequences” of not upholding the pledge are no different than those of reneging on any other campaign promise; no one is being administered electric shocks. It’s just that voters will be less likely to trust someone’s word on this issue in the future, and may opt to vote for someone else who is more reliably aligned with their views and backs up their words with their actions. This is pretty standard politics.
***
Re: AHO+CSO as a two great tastes that taste great together —
Support for the AHO and the CSO often go hand-in-hand (though there are a few candidates who are exceptions) because in order to increase the amount of housing without city streets becoming even more congested with cars, it’s critical to also provide safe and reliable alternatives to driving for getting around. Pretty sure this is uncontroversial and self-evident; in fact, a very common objection to larger housing developments is “the neighborhood can’t support the number of cars that this will bring,” with concerns about increased traffic and being unable to find nearby street parking. Cycling is one such alternative and the CSO is a major way the city is making cycling safe and reliable. Of course, public transit is arguably the biggest piece of the puzzle, but unlike bike lanes, the city has very little control over the MBTA (though some candidates do seem to believe otherwise, and I wish them the best of luck).