The woman who drove into me while I was riding my bike between Porter and Harvard squares was very apologetic. She just didn’t see me when she pulled across the painted bike lane and knocked me off my bicycle. I wasn’t killed like the young woman in Inman Square or the older man in Porter Square, but I was banged up and very shaken. I stopped riding for a while and avoided Massachusetts Avenue for longer, choosing different restaurants and shops.
These days I’m riding on Massachusetts Avenue again because of the protected bike lanes. I ride to work on the Hampshire Street protected lanes. But whether I and others – parents, kids, new riders – will be able to continue to get around Cambridge safely depends on the upcoming City Council election.
Candidates Joan Pickett and John Hanratty are two of the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the Cycling Safety Ordinance. Pickett wants to “hit the pause button” on implementing that law. Incumbents Paul Toner and E. Denise Simmons have sponsored multiple policy orders to delay installation of protected lanes. These candidates would set Cambridge back. They are wrong for a city committed to eliminating injuries and deaths from traffic crashes and they are wrong for a city serious about addressing climate change.
Arah Schuur, Walker Street, Somerville
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.
Joan is highly credentialed and a really good person. I’ve never met her prior to this election cycle but she is one of those people that just reminded me that Cambridge really is for everyone. She is definitely getting my vote this election cycle. Bikes are just not the only issue and no one is ripping up the bike lanes. I think the lawsuit was just a bunch of frustrated citizens ignored by CDD and this City making a last ditch attempt to be heard.
Some fact about the lawsuit:
1. It asked to remove pretty much all the separated quickbuild bike lanes the City has installed.
2. While the plaintiffs (including candidates Hanratty and Pickett) lost, they appealed the case, so it’s still continuing.
3. Another plaintiff in the lawsuit is Cambridge Streets For All, of which Pickett was the chair until her run for office. Hanratty is still listed as a member (https://cambridgeforall.org/bios). In other words, they both were actually party to the lawsuit twice as over.
4. Asking a judge to rip out large scale infrastructure investments is not how most people approach an “attempt to be heard”. Even if it was, the thing they were trying to be heard about is… that they don’t want the bike lanes.
Nice letter – Pickett is pretty clear about her views on bike lanes on her campaign website. She may be a lovely person in many other respects but if elected I expect she’s going to try to hit pause on lanes and try to restore parking as she states. She will not get my vote.
Somerville? OK. But this election is for Cambridge voters (who are MUCH MORE diverse on this issue). And yes, all support safe bicycling but want more planning, data, and local street analysis. Note too this is about the 5th -8th such pro-bicyclist piece in CD of late on this same meme. If we add in all the posts on Reddit and Nextdoor (often also by non-Cambridge residents) saying much the same thing, it seems we are hearing largely from one side. Is this what most of the local Cambridge voters are supporting? We will know more shortly by how many people who didn’t sign the bike oath get elected.
@Patrick, I think the people who pushed for the Cycling Safety Ordinance were just a bunch of frustrated citizens ignored by the CDD and this City making a last ditch attempt to improve their safety on the streets.
Sanfordw, safe bike lanes in our fair city are used by many many people including our neighbors from Somerville, Arlington, Belmont, Boston, etc. You see many letter in support of bike lanes because they are … popular. Candidates like Joan Picket and John Hanratty express a fringe viewpoint in favor of removing safe bike lanes and putting parking spots.
@patrick. Anyone who would oppose something that is reducing accidents and injuries and saving lives is not a good person.
If Pickett, Hanratty, Simmons, and Toner have their way, more people will be hurt and likely killed.
That is not my definition of a good person.
I voted early and Pickett and Hanratty didn’t make the cut b/c of their opposition to bicyclist safety. Hope other do the same.
Dear friends –
I extend a warm invitation to any cyclist who uses Mass Ave in North Cambridge to pause their commute and join me for a cup of coffee or tea on our front porch during their commute – morning or afternoon. The cacophony of horns, punctuated by shouted expletives will serve as a background to our thoughtful conversation and provide you with a break in your commute.
You see, I live on a “yield street” – a street with two-way traffic in a single available lane of travel – a street that runs between Mass Ave and Davis Square. Nearly every business day – twice each day, our street is grid-locked by cars queuing to turn onto Mass Ave which is similarly gridlocked. Cars trying to turn onto our street are met with stiff resistance and most frequently turn around in frustration.
I joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff in the same manner the suit was brough forth – reluctantly and as an action of last resort. For months I, and other like-minded individuals attended Cambridge City Council meetings and read our prepared statements. We hoped that the sensibility of basing transportation / road use policy on data, using a regional and inclusive perspective with identifiable and measurable goals would be carefully considered. It was not.
The implications of the bike lanes / bus lanes on Mass Ave ripple through the businesses that line that street and extend into the neighborhoods on either side. It is time for our Cambridge traffic policies to be reviewed.
As it stands, twice each day and for extended periods of time, emergency services cannot access our neighborhood. Each day, our well-being and our lives are placed at greater risk. The traffic congestion that causes this elevated risk is a direct result of the installation of the bike and bus lanes.
Cambridge can do better. Cambridge must do better.
Toby
The author of this letter is doing a public service by pointing out that saying you support bike safety and doing something about it are two different things. A candidate may be for bike lanes, they may be against them, or they may believe that bike lanes are fine so long as they can overcome a gauntlet of beaurocratic obstacles that no auto lane or parking spot was ever subject to. Whatever the case, the electorate should be made aware and not go to the polls believing that “all support safe bicycling”. While that may be theoretically true, many believe that abundant parking and unobstructed auto travel (ie, high speeds) are more important than safety.
@FrankD
Data do not support you assertion. Have you reviewed, would you please share data associated with frequency of accidents (pedestrian, bicycle, auto) in the sections of roadway?
Here’s a start: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/04/24/opponents-of-bike-lanes-are-back-with-an-analysis-showing-the-safety-measures-cause-more-injuries/
Dear Toby,
You might have already heard about this, but there is a two year design process underway to redesign all of Mass Ave between Harvard Square and the Arlington border. It’s called the Mass Ave Partial Reconstruction project:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/publicworks/cityprojects/2021/massave4massavepartialconstruction
This project is the result of an extensive series of public meetings. Feedback about the North Mass Ave lanes was taken into account, and consequently a full redesign of that segment is included in the project.
The ‘partial reconstruction’ approach is a compromise between the more impactful ‘quick-build’ solution vs. a longer and more expensive ‘full reconstruction’ process. The agreement was made to move forward with this plan in April 2022, and the vote to fund this work was ultimately passed by the council unanimously 9-0. I would like to note that this agreement to redesign the segment that you’ve mentioned came months ahead of the lawsuit, which was filed in June 2022.
As part of this design process, there have been a series of public working group meetings, and outreach to businesses. The city has just released proposed design plans for the first part of Mass Ave, between Harvard and Porter. The plans include parking on both sides of the street. Sadly, there are still signs up along that segment which claim that all parking will be removed for bike lanes, which is far from the plan or reality.
Many of our neighbors appreciate the changes to ensure that people can walk and bike more safely. Over a third of Cambridge households do not own a single car, but those numbers are higher in certain neighborhoods, notably including 52% of the Kendall neighborhood and 47% of the Riverside Neighborhood. Everyone in Cambridge deserves the opportunity to safe and efficient mobility, even if they do not own a car.
It does seem that the city is actively responding to the concern you’ve mentioned by redesigning Mass Ave. Considering this new information, does any of it change your thoughts on the process and redesign of Mass Ave? If you feel somewhat better about the community process and redesign, would you consider removing your name from the lawsuit against the city to stop and remove the bike lanes, which is currently being appealed? If not, could you explain more clearly why the redesign process has been insufficient?
Best,
Chris
@Toby, you might want to note that the analysis you shared was written by John Hanratty, who is a not a transportation analyst and does not have expertise in transportation safety analysis. As a plaintiff in the lawsuit to stop and remove the bike lanes, he certainly is not a neutral party.
We have plenty of objective data that studies the safety impacts of installing bike lanes. Unsurprisingly, bike lanes the rate of crashes and most importantly serious injuries. They also keep vehicles from excessively speeding, which reduces crashes generally, and reduces the rate of severe pedestrian injuries.
There is a 2023 Federal safety study, which uses data from Cambridge’s quick-build separated bike lanes, and finds that physical separation reduces crashes by over 50% when compared to paint-only bike lanes: https://bit.ly/fhwacam23
There is a city speed study which showed that on Cambridge St, slower travel speeds led to fewer crashes and injuries of all types of road users:
https://bit.ly/cstspeed
There is also a comprehensive report that shows that the crash rate for people bicycling continues to decline; notably, the number of crashes resulting in severe injuries is significantly reduced, from 5.2% of crashes in the 2004-2012 period to less than 1% in the 2015-2022 period. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Bike/bikereports/20231023bicyclingincambridgedatareport_final.pdf
Toby, does any of this objective data challenge your beliefs about whether the conclusions from the Hanratty report are valid? What (if any) data would help you be more convinced that bike lanes prevent serious injuries to cyclists?
Best,
Chris
Dear Chris –
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered responses. Before I address the questions you posed in your first response, allow me to address the Hanratty-derived data that I cited and that you referred to in your second.
Hanratty simply had the wisdom to ask the question, ‘What are the results to date of the build out of the bike lanes on traffic accidents of various types in the affected areas?’ I think we could all agree that that is a reasonable question if not an obvious one. He pulled the data from public records and had them prepared and reviewed by a certified statistician. The conclusions were independently drawn and verified by a qualified and objective third party. The primary sources of the data are public records.
Your comment / assertion about the decline in severe injuries compares data from 2004 – 2012 with data from 2015 – 2022. Might one also infer from those same data that the rates of severe injuries were declining long before the CSO was ever envisioned?
Sadly, the Working Group of which you are a part is simply rearranging deck chairs on Mass Ave and I do not intend to debate these issues with you here on Cambridge Day.
To advance the conversation a bit however, may I suggest that when it comes to traffic, what happens on Mass Ave does not stay on Mass Ave. In my previous comment I’ve described the effects of the Mass Ave bike lane / bus lane installation in my neighborhood. I have also stood before Cambridge City Council and shared my first-hand experience with them.
The spill-over traffic situation on my street is unacceptable. Come have coffee and see for yourself.
Let’s think together and talk about what a comprehensive, data-driven transportation plan might look like – a plan that reviews and perhaps adjusts the configuration of the streets that abut Mass Ave, a plan that takes into account the traffic that flows to and from adjoining communities who are performing similar reviews and adjusting their own traffic flow patterns.
As long as the City and your Working Group remain singularly focused on Mass Ave while continuing to ignore the spill-over effects of the bike lane / bus lane implementation on the adjacent streets and neighborhoods, I will remain steadfast in my opposition to the CSO.
I do not foresee myself withdrawing from the suit.
I will be an interesting election indeed.
Let’s have coffee!
Kind regards,
Toby
Dear Toby,
Thank you for the kind message, I would be glad to have coffee.
I do want to ask why you suggest that the Mass Ave reconstruction is ‘rearranging the deck chairs’? It is a complete reconstruction project, which has a lot of flexibility to completely redesign the road near your house. The part of the project that has been scoped out between Harvard and Porter is completely different from what exists or what people had expected. It includes parking on both sides of Mass Ave, which may come as a surprise to business owners who were misinformed by those opposed to the project.
The working group is a city-run group, which includes members of the small business community (Keefe Funeral Home, Denise Jillson, Ward Maps), Ruth Ryals from PSNA, residents from the Porter Sq area and North Cambridge, among others. The conversations have been both broad and deep, and have included discussions and walk-throughs. They include discussions about where traffic backs up on side streets, where is it hard to cross the street and how to address it with better crosswalks and lights, which turns are stressful for drivers, etc. The meetings are open to the public and even have a public comment period at the end, and the videos are available online afterward.
Does any of this change how you feel about the validity and potential outcomes of the Mass Ave reconstruction project? What would you specifically like the process to include which is missing? I would be glad to relay it or put you in touch with the project team.
Best,
Chris
Re: the Hanratty analysis, it’s not about the statistics, the point I was trying to make is that there are objective and experienced transportation analysts who do this work. The federal safety study I mentioned was conducted by the Federal Highway Administration, which is not a bicyclist group, they are bona fide transportation experts trying to understand what the truth is. We are lucky that they happened to actually use data from Cambridge to do their study, so we actually know that the data from Cambridge’s bike lanes is improving safety.
Notably, experienced transportation analysts who study these specific issues understand important considerations, such as the utilization of lanes, the length of time required to understand whether a facility is safer. Crashes and severe injuries are luckily rare events in any one place, so they happen with some statistical variation that needs to be accounted for. The Hanratty PDF talked about bicycle volume as steady or decreasing throughout the city, based on data from one counter near the Longfellow Bridge, which is not near the lanes that are studied, and not an accurate way to study this problem, as you actually need to know something about changes to bike utilization to understand the rates.
There are also major biases in crash reporting rates (formerly crashes were often not reported unless somebody was seriously injured, but now that has dramatically changed.) So what the city did in their study was look at both crash rates, as well as severity of injuries. So it is not that I have any problem with somebody asking the question, but rather that I trust an objective expert to answer it.
Finally, street safety is not just about bikes — pedestrians are being killed at nearly double the rate than in 2010. Drivers have more distractions, are driving more recklessly, and are using larger vehicles, and it’s impacting all of us:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzOmzirXwAAXzzl?format=jpg&name=medium
Chris Casa,
I agree. It works both ways. Now you’re pushing the narrative that people who want to alter the CSO or who don’t support “The Pledge” are car murder loving psychos. I just do not feel the same way. I also think bikes are not the only issue in the city. If you guys are willing to endorse someone who actually brought violence to this city simply because he signed a pledge why should anyone trust you?
Sorry Toby you aren’t to believe what you see. Suck it up if you need an ambulance or drive kids to a music lesson too bad bike or sit in park!
Traffic has spilled over into most of the side streets in North Cambridge for the morning and evening commutes. This isn’t true you are lying, how dare you not he in love with the demolition of mass Ave.
Plastic pylon heaven auto driving senior citizen family hell. Sign the pledge or else what a disgrace Cambridge has come to that. Credit to Patty Nolan and others for not bowing to the big bike lobby.
So we will find out soon enough Toby.
Plastic pylon heaven all the way along mass Ave to H Sq designed by the “experts”. Or a pause and evaluation of the destruction done and more reasonable and sensible plan ahead.
@Patrick, if we removed all of the speed limits from our existing roads, would more people be injured or killed? Unquestionably. Speed limits prevent injuries and deaths, so reversing them would have the opposite effect.
Similarly, a candidate could simply dislike the implementation of bike lanes in Cambridge, despite their proven safety benefits. Given that multiple studies above have demonstrated that these lanes reduce crashes, removing them would have the opposite effect, increasing the number of serious injuries or deaths.
So when two candidates sued the city to stop and remove the bike lanes, and have publicly called for a ‘moratorium’, these action do similarly increase danger on our streets. For the record, nobody labeled them “car murder loving psychos”.
Regarding the single issue question, it is actually very helpful for voters to know a clearly stated position on an issue. In this election, EVERY candidate has said that bike safety is important, and has said that they support bike lanes. But some have literally sued and called for a moratorium on bike lanes, and some have voted against every bike lane that came to a vote this term. So it is beneficial to voters to know which are truly committed to a timely implementation (For the record, the CSO provides over 7 years to complete a basic network, I frankly don’t understand how that is not enough time to figure out how to do this right.)
Of course, people will indeed vote across many issues that are important to them, and there are a very large number of candidates who have a proven voting record and who have signed the pledge, and they span a broad range of other positions, on housing, trees/green space, policing, unions, and so on. Having a resource which describes where candidates fall on street safety is helpful for anyone who wants information on that topic, and they can cross reference other information to set their priorities accordingly.
Chris –
I am disappointed but not surprised by your responses here to my comments and to the thoughtful comments of others. Putting together a forward-thinking transportation strategy and framework for a city as complex as Cambridge is a daunting task for the most skilled and experience civil and traffic engineers.
The cocksuredness of your responses clinging to irrelevant data, reinforcing the old themes of ableist, cycle-centric themes reminds me of one of the main reasons that I joined the suit. Our concerns, the concerns of our neighbors, be they residents or business owners were ignored.
Not once in your responses here have you said anything close to,”good point, let me see if I understand you correctly….” and shown any indication of a willingness to revisit your assumptions. Instead you clung to old dogma and mansplained to us why our perspectives were misguided and misapplied.
I am sad for the City of Cambridge. We are futher away from coherent multi-dimension transportation policies the we were when I was engaged with these issues.
This will be my last post here and I will not be checking back to view any response.
I hope that your path to humility will not be as painful as mine.
Toby
I remain confident in the three professional analyses of the safety benefits of our separated bike lanes in Cambridge. These were conducted by three different teams of transportation analysts that reached the (expected) conclusion that bike lanes make conditions safer for those biking. It would be very surprising if separated bike lanes would not reduce crashes or crash severity.
There is also one report from a person who is not a transportation analyst, and who is also suing the city to stop and remove the bike lanes. Call me cocksure, but I think I’m not being unreasonable to take that one with a grain of salt.
For me, it is personal, as I was hit by a driver on Cambridge Street, where there is no protected bike lane. The driver had already nearly fully executed the turn at a high speed before reaching the intersection. This would not have been possible had there been a separated bike lane. I believe in this work, and my safety and the safety of others depends on it. We do not have time to waste.
Correct Toby it is sad very sad for the City. When a fact is presented such as there is an economic slowdown on the horizon you are vilified as a right wing lunatic. Name called in some manner.
Cambridge Central Scare is even referenced in this article below.
Everyone in Cambridge can keep putting their head in the sand and demand the city spend 500m dollars on poorly designed and even worse constructed bike lanes. Or just maybe take a pause and rethink is this the best way to spend 500m dollars for the city.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/11/10/a-cloud-hanging-over-everybodys-head-new-construction-in-greater-boston-faces-a-slowdown/?p1=hp_secondary