Work on reusing private parking lots has started; If it can delay bike-lane deadline yet to be decided
A bike lane on Cambridge Street in East Cambridge. (Photo: Marc Levy)
The bet is that owners of private Cambridge parking lots such as East Cambridge Savings Bank or Lesley University will open their unused spaces to shoppers, diners, worshippers and residents with nowhere else to go after bike lanes replace street parking.
If the bet pays off, lanes on Main Street, Cambridge Street and Broadway will go in as recommended by the city’s Cycling Safety Ordinance with no pain to places and people dependent on cars.
But before the city know how that plays out, there’s something else at risk: the bike-lane law’s deadline, which city councillors Paul Toner, Joan Pickett and Ayesha Wilson want extended by a year and a half to allow time for the enactment of the parking change.
The order calling for the change in parking-lot zoning passed 8-0 on April 8, while the possible extension of the bike-lane deadline to Nov. 1, 2027, from May 1, 2026, was put on pause before a vote. With Patriot’s Day and Passover on successive Mondays, debate can’t be heard again until April 29.
“If we are going to take the time to mitigate the parking, this is what they would need to be able to move forward,” Toner said. “Staff are going to continue to work on the design and the planning for Cambridge Street, Main Street and Broadway.”
With the deadline on the 2019 law approaching to complete its required 22.6 bicycle-lane miles, councillors are weighing the urgency and frequency of cyclist crashes with the potential negative impacts on businesses. But Toner said the change would mean simply that instead of installing bike lanes on those three major business corridors, staff would “turn the focus to several other streets and do the work there.”
There was a flaw in that reasoning for vice mayor Marc McGovern, who wanted to instead “build the mitigation into the current planning cycle.”
“Do what you have to do to mitigate, but let’s not pretend that a delay doesn’t cause risk to people,” McGovern said, pointing to a 2023 city report showing that where bike lanes are installed, ridership goes up and crashes go down. Cambridge Street saw 60 crashes within two years, and 40 of them resulted in injuries, he said. “If I think something is safer and necessary, how do I vote to delay that implementation for 15 to 18 months? Just keep my fingers crossed that nothing bad happens in that time?”
Tradeoffs, and a timing risk
The findings were fuzzier in a Cycling Safety Ordinance Economic Impact Study from January, in which businesses where bike lanes had been installed “were more likely to report a decrease in revenue [that] was statistically significant,” but hard data was lacking; the study period was filled with complicating factors such as the Covid pandemic and a surge in inflation and economic pessimism; and “the voluntary nature of the survey means that it may not be fully representative of all affected businesses.”
Businesses and others affected by the lanes or fearing their effect have been vocal at council meetings, and filed two lawsuits against the city to stop the installations.
“There have been tremendous benefits to the installation of bike lanes,” City Manager Yi-An Huang told the council. “There have also been challenges, and I’ve certainly had a lot of the same meetings with churches, store owners and restaurants.”
“This is a real set of tradeoffs that we are discussing in terms of the speed with which we can install bike lanes versus how we can mitigate the impacts on residents and businesses that most severely feel the impact of parking loss,” Huang said.
Beyond the human risk, there are ways that bike-lane delays on three of the city’s busiest streets could backfire, transportation commissioner Brooke McKenna said.
Putting a hold on the three streets and “starting them up as soon as the mitigation is available means that we’re then doing a lot of projects at the same time in the same general part of the city,” McKenna said. “There’s less time or just less space for the community to absorb the parking changes.”
Unknown capacity
The parking changes may work out, and Toner said he and East Cambridge Business Association executive director Jason Alves have been making private inquiries – finding some parking-lot owners “who are open to the idea” – to see what appetite there is for reuse of spaces on private lots. (There are also some under-the-table arrangements in place that could come out in the open with the zoning change, Toner said.) City staff said they have not looked into capacity, and that if the change is put in place it would not be the role of the city to negotiate deals; nor is the city yet looking to put part-time meters in private lots. It would issue commercial parking permits if a lot were to be open to the general public rather than reserved by specific businesses, McKenna said.
Despite the hint of optimism from the legwork by Toner and Alves, McGovern expressed caution.
“I don’t want to be Debbie Downer,” McGovern said. “We’ve got to be careful in saying, ‘Oh, if we do this, all these parking spaces are going to open up.’ We don’t know if anyone’s going to want to rent their parking spaces to to the public.”
The parking zoning is complex, with rules scattered through the city code and needing to tested carefully to guard against unintended consequences, said assistant city manager for community development Iram Farooq. But McGovern argued for ordinance-change recommendations coming to the council no later than the first meeting in October, and Farooq said that was “reasonable.” The work has begun, she said.
It’s among the first steps from a plan to reshape Cambridge transportation over the next decade that includes more than 30 action items – most meant to push residents gently away from driving and parking.
“There was a flaw in that reasoning for vice mayor Marc McGovern, who wanted to instead “build the mitigation into the current planning cycle….”Do what you have to do to mitigate, but let’s not pretend that a delay doesn’t cause risk to people,” McGovern said.”.
doing responsible problem-solving towards mitigation takes time to get it right. Everything about this topic is panic-producing and dramatic. Not that loss of human life is trivial.. by no means. Some ask the question about statistics– how many accidents are by untutored or indulgent bike riders? bringing up the sad death of a 4 yr old in Boston by a truck is not the same issue. We have to live together. The bike lobby (and certain councilors) are basically siloed in their arguments and produce panic instead of thoughtfully listening to both sides to solve a city-wide problem. neither bikes nor cars are going away.
If we want to completely eliminate the risk that a motor vehicle will hit a bicyclist or pedestrian we could prohibit all cars and trucks (and buses? electric bikes? electric scooters? police cars? fire trucks?) from using the Cambridge city streets.
Short of that we can make the streets easier for some forms of transportation, but nearly always at the cost of making it harder for others. There are very few that work in total synergy. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. The question is what is a reasonable compromise.
With the deadline on the 2019 law approaching to complete its required 22.6 bicycle-lane miles, councillors are weighing the urgency and frequency of ̶c̶y̶c̶l̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶r̶a̶s̶h̶e̶s̶ car drivers hitting cyclists with the ̶p̶o̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶g̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶a̶c̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶e̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ unsubstantiated fears of some business owners. Fixed that for you.
There is no evidence protected bike lanes hurt small businesses. None. There is tons of evidence that protected bike lanes save lives. This is about placating a politically influential minority at the risk of resident safety. It’s not about “balance” or “nuance” or any other mealy-mouthed abstraction. Cuts, bruises, broken arms, and shattered femurs aren’t abstract. Avoidable deaths aren’t abstract. They’re the very real, well documented consequences of delaying safe infrastructure.
Those of us who bike, or who love people who bike, will have this fight as many times as we have to.
This picture of Giro Studio is at an intersection where there were 18 crashes in less than 3 years. Giro Studios was the victim of one of those crashes, as a reckless driver plowed into the side of the building, leading to an expensive restoration that took many months. Safer road design would have helped prevent that.
A few other things to note on this stretch of Cambridge Street:
* This is about more than bike safety, in addition to Giro Studio, many of the injuries on this stretch were from cars that hit people while walking.
* A business intercept study that was just released showed that only 21% of people who were _actual customers_ at these businesses arrived by car. This finding is consistent across studies over many years and business districts. Most of the cars on the road are not there to shop, they are driving through.
* In the ‘business impacts survey’, only 10% of East Cambridge businesses answered. This was much lower than the rest of the city. If there is a high level of concern about the impacts of upcoming projects, one would imagine it would result in an equal or higher response rate than in the rest of the city.
In addition to this potentially valuable re-use of existing parking, there are also many other mitigations, including places where parking could be added, better signage to existing municipal parking lots, and better parking meter policies can ensure that _customers_ have parking.
It’s time to stop letting potential fears drive these discussions, and let the nearly 2 year design and implementation of Cambridge Street play out. We don’t need to delay it for yet another 2 years into 2027.
@CCperson Why argue against reducing accidents just because we can’t eliminate them entirely? Using that logic, we should remove safety features like seatbelts and airbags because we can’t prevent all motor vehicle fatalities.
The presence of other cars complicates driving and parking, causing traffic jams and occupying parking spaces.
Bike lanes alleviate traffic congestion by encouraging more people to bike, making streets safer for all, including drivers and pedestrians. It’s proven.
When will drivers realize that bike lanes benefit them too?
Hi Paul Toner, Joan Pickett, and Ayesha Wilson. There’s no evidence that bike lanes harm business; all data suggests they have neutral or positive effects.
Your delay seems needless, likely just to pacify those upset about potential inconvenience.
Cambridge has seen 60 crashes in the last two years, many causing serious injuries, including a cyclist hit by a truck in Porter Square yesterday, and a recent child fatality.
Your unwarranted delay risks preventable injuries and deaths for which you’ll bear responsibility.
Neither Chris Cassa nor McGovern can read data very well.
Cambridge Street certainly didn’t see “ 65 crashes within two years, with 42 of them going to the hospital ” for bicyclists according to the city’s own data.
Can we please stop Chicken Little from squawking long enough to have a much needed civil conversation?
@kdolan, unfortunately the 65 number is out of date already. Somebody drove into a pedestrian yesterday at Cambridge and Sixth, so now it’s 66. https://twitter.com/CambridgeCrash/status/1780686275584160249
Let me share a little about what it’s like as one of those 66 people. I was hit on Cambridge St at Windsor in April last year. Despite actually having to go to the hospital to get x-rays, I was marked as not having an injury in my police report, because I had refused a medical transport. (I clearly told the officer that my back hurt at the scene, and I remember the driver yelling at me to stop complaining, and that my back didn’t really hurt…) That pain became much worse over the next few days, and some of it lingered for months. I couldn’t work meaningfully for a couple of weeks, but I am privileged that people at work were understanding.
Let me tell you though, it is extremely scary to get hit. I would not have expected that as an experienced driver and cyclist, and I don’t want it to happen to anyone else. So when people minimize how scary this sort of thing is, I think you should just count yourself lucky that it hasn’t happened to you (as a pedestrian) or somebody you know. I also consider myself incredibly lucky that I was not more seriously injured.
In terms of the crash, I was going straight and the person who hit me was traveling in the opposite direction, and hit me while turning left onto Windsor. The driver started turning well ahead of the intersection, and then blamed me for ‘biking into’ their car. There was nowhere for me to go and I could not stop in time, and did my best to get out of the way.
Despite failing to yield, the driver was not cited by the police officer, even though the other driver and I both agreed on the fact that they had turned and failed to yield, as I was traveling straight. Luckily it was in front of a new dispensary which came out to offer the videos to me. You can watch it here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/iprssp2oyjg6hb0k5uvfd/Crash-Clip.mov?rlkey=w9za9is2v1jrftouq8yifrrlq&dl=0
I was not traveling too quickly, and it was the middle of the day and not raining. The reason I was hit is that the driver recklessly turned on roads that allowed them to. A protected bike lane with floating parking would have made the driver have to actually get into the intersection before turning and they would have had to do it more carefully. They also would likely have been traveling more slowly and carefully on a more narrow road.
From the city’s Cambridge St crash map, there were 18 other crashes _just at that exact intersection_, and 10 of them (11 if you count me) caused injuries, and that’s just from Jan 21-Sept 23). Here’s the map of that subset of crashes: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2024projects/cambridgestreet/cambridgestcrashdatamap.pdf The city reported from Sept ’23 there were 49 pedestrians and cyclists who were hit on Cambridge St, and 42 of them were injured. Over the last 7 months, there have been additional crashes, and there are also additional crashes which are reported separately on the MassDOT crash portal. There are actually three different sources of crash data: the CPD police logs, CPD reports, and the MassDOT portal.
People in my life reacted pretty differently to hearing that I got hit. My father tells me every few months he wishes I didn’t bike. But I think that misses some of this, as it’s also really dangerous to _walk_ on Cambridge St. Other people were really surprised, as if this is a really uncommon event. I don’t know if that’s what you expected, but just for context, I was hit, the neighbor who lived directly above me was hit (while pregnant), two current city councilors have been hit and injured, at least one former city councilor that I know has been hit, one city councilor’s son was doored, and at least two plaintiffs in the lawsuit to stop the bike lanes were hit as pedestrians. These events are far too common.
The design process for Cambridge Street began in the Fall of 2023, and the installation of these bike lanes is planned for next year, realistically finishing up sometime in the Fall of 2025. That means that it’s going to be around a 2 year process already, just for one road. Do we need it to be a 3 year process, or a 4 year process? When will it be enough process? This policy order would allow that lane to be installed up to 2 years later, potentially finishing as late as November 2027. That guarantees that many more pedestrians and cyclists will be needlessly hit and injured. I am not willing to sit back and let that happen.
@pete
“doing responsible problem-solving towards mitigation takes time to get it right.”
How about we talk about mitigating the demonstrated safety risks and do it quickly and then maybe we can talk about parking mitigation after the more pressing issues are addressed. Wait that’s exactly what the CSO mandates. Why should parking mitigation have to be perfect in the eyes of people who expect abundant free parking in order to address safety issues? The order of priorities is really bizarre.
“Not that loss of human life is trivial.. by no means. Some ask the question about statistics– how many accidents are by untutored or indulgent bike riders?”
All loss of human life is tragic but what if I blame the victim, huh what about that?
“bringing up the sad death of a 4 yr old in Boston by a truck is not the same issue.”
It absolutely is the same issue considering these plans are also for pedestrian safety improvements and that bike lanes are a proven safety benefit to all road users.
“We have to live together.”
Yes we do which means the convenience of drivers cannot come before the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. That should be obvious. But to you “we have to live together” seems to mean bicyclists should just except dangerous road designs.
“The bike lobby (and certain councilors) are basically siloed in their arguments and produce panic instead of thoughtfully listening to both sides to solve a city-wide problem. neither bikes nor cars are going away.”
What about the car lobby? What’s the other side in the two sides you mention? Why do you only denigrate the “bike lobby” then? Seems to me that one side wants to be able to get home safe to their family and the other doesn’t want to be slightly inconvenienced in maybe having to take slightly longer to find parking. These are not two sides of equal weight frankly. Anyone with a basic sense of ethics should see what takes priority there. The current distribution of space on our roads is unjust.
“If we want to completely eliminate the risk that a motor vehicle will hit a bicyclist or pedestrian we could prohibit all cars and trucks (and buses? electric bikes? electric scooters? police cars? fire trucks?) from using the Cambridge city streets.”
First of all some of those things are not like the others. Bus drivers have much more rigorous training than the average driver. Including on driving with bicyclists which is barely even mentioned in drivers Ed. Electric bikes and scooters have killed no one in this city. Fire trucks literally save lives, although we could use some smaller ones like they have in Europe and Asia so they no longer serve as an excuse to maintain unsafe streets.
But as for banning cars, trucks and police cars, don’t tempt me with a good time.
“Short of that we can make the streets easier for some forms of transportation, but nearly always at the cost of making it harder for others. There are very few that work in total synergy. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. The question is what is a reasonable compromise.”
Currently the mode that we always make things easier for is driving, at the expense not only of making it harder for people using other modes but literally making it more dangerous. The status quo is tilted extremely far in one direction, if you are actually interested in compromise you would be telling this to drivers, whose convenience has been central for decades, not to people on bikes, who have only recently been given over a little bit of dedicated space on our roadways.
Also when it comes between safety of one mode of travel on the one hand and convenience for another mode of travel on the other, compromising between those things is insulting and ethically dubious.
@kdolan
“Neither Chris Cassa nor McGovern can read data very well. Cambridge Street certainly didn’t see “ 65 crashes within two years, with 42 of them going to the hospital ” for bicyclists according to the city’s own data.”
That number isn’t wrong, it just includes both bicyclists and pedestrians. Given that the bike lane installation also includes plans for improved crossings, bump outs, and other safety improvements for pedestrians too it is more misleading to pretend that those pedestrian involved crashes and injuries are irrelevant. Not only are people fighting against improvements for people on bikes they are fighting against improvements for people on foot.
“Can we please stop Chicken Little from squawking long enough to have a much needed civil conversation?”
This is hardly civil. You are simply dismissing the very real safety concerns of other people so that the conversation can be held on your terms. Those numbers all indicate a real person who was hit by a real car, that needs to be part of any actually civil conversation about this, and can’t just be dismissed because it is inconvenient to you. Given the proven safety risk on these roads (the reason they are in the CSO in the first place) delaying safety improvements all but guarantees more people will be injured and possibly killed. That’s not chicken little “the sky is falling” it is a clear and obvious deduction from the fact that people already are.
The irony of appealing to civility while treating reasonable safety concerns of real people as ridiculous and far less important than your need to find a parking space immediately…
It is truly astounding to hear accusations of “alarmism” and “chicken little” from the Parking Lobby, which has been howling for years that losing some parking spots is going to “destroy the character of Cambridge.”
why do issues always become binary- bike lobby vs parking lobby? many people concerned about bike lanes don’t even have cars. there are more concerns than just parking. but this for- us -or against- us is fanning the flame of entrenchment. it’s exhausting an not helpful to understanding without creating panic.
@pete, I agree, it is not binary, and most people want to see us improve the safety of a dangerous road like Cambridge St while making sure that mitigations are done properly. We’ve met lots of parents who do not bike, but still care deeply about making sure their kids can cross the street safely and have independence to get around, especially to King Open or Valente.
I also drive and walk, shop frequently at the small businesses and restaurants on Cambridge St, and want them to be successful. I am 100% in favor of the parking mitigations that are planned, and want to see those move forward quickly. To me, 2 years should be sufficient to get this right. The one thing I’m sure of is that if we allow this project to take 4 years, it will take 4 years.
Hey pete,
I’m sorry if I offended you by derisively referring to a group of citizens who organize to advocate for policy changes in their city as a “lobby”. I understand how this detracts from public discourse and trivializes the varied experiences and viewpoints of the people who have chosen to politically unite around a common cause. For these reasons, I think we should all stop using the “lobby” label in a sorry attempt to discredit our fellow Cantabrigians. What do you say?
@pete: “ why do issues always become binary- bike lobby vs parking lobby?”
This you?
“The bike lobby (and certain councilors) are basically siloed in their arguments and produce panic instead of thoughtfully listening to both sides to solve a city-wide problem.”
It is genuinely incredible to ask that question after you yourself started off this comment thread lamenting about the “bike lobby,” dismissing genuine safety concerns, and ignoring that those who defend parking above all else are just as much “siloed in their arguments and produce panic instead of thoughtfully listening to both sides to solve a city-wide problem.” What do you think all the kvetching about bike lanes claiming they will kill business without any evidence is exactly? (Those arguments are 100% behind this bad policy proposal too)
@chriscassa
Chris- first you exaggerate data, now you are insinuating false police reporting and lack of driver concern for your well being? All that certainly questions your credibility for being a voice of reason in this conversation.
Accidents have been falling for many years. We have more bike infrastructure than almost any city in the country with more to come. So trying to inflame public sentiment on safety metrics is disingenuous.
The notion that there is a “delay” here is also distorted, first because the time limitations of the BSO are completely arbitrary and never should have been so prescriptive, second because as discussed in the meeting Traffic has already failed to begin the project in the manner the council keeps asking for on every single bike lane project. Pubic notification, collection of data from businesses and parking mitigation before the project starts.
Rather than the previous methods of chaotic and disruptive break-fix methods used in every other installation this proposal seems to be asking the city to do this project correctly. Not an unreasonable request.
@slaw
Until you’re willing to use your real name it’s all squawk, squawk
@kdolan, the fact is that there are 65 crashes reported to the police on Cambridge St affecting pedestrians or cyclists since 2021. At least 42 of those people have been reported as injured. I was also surprised by those numbers, but they are real. What number of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists do you believe there have been on Cambridge St since 2021, is there a way for us to get to the same factual number?
The driver in my crash was not cited at the scene, despite agreeing they had turned while I was traveling straight in the other direction (which constitutes failure to yield), and it’s shown in the police report. The driver was actually cited after the fact, once the police traffic analyst reviewed the video, so there was a cause to cite the driver. I am also not marked as injured in my police report, despite actually stating that my back hurt and being injured, and actually getting x-rays and having multiple doctor visits about the injury. I believe this under-reporting can happen for any number of reasons, and do not ascribe malice.
There are two different delays built into the policy order: one part is to extend the entire timeline to over 3.5 years away (Nov 2027), and the other part is to block three major bike lanes from being developed for the next 15 months. Those are very real delays and they will have serious consequences.
“first you exaggerate data” no one exaggerated data you are being confronted with evidence you don’t like and basically sticking your fingers in your ears.
“Accidents have been falling for many years. We have more bike infrastructure than almost any city in the country with more to come. So trying to inflame public sentiment on safety metrics is disingenuous.”
This argument is disingenuous. Accident rates have fallen a bit in recent years in Cambridge (while they are going up in the rest of the country) and this is precisely because Cambridge has been investing in bike infrastructure. If you want that trend to continue you need to keep doing so. It is simply incoherent to trumpet the safety benefits created by protected bike lanes and try to use that to support delaying their installation.
“The notion that there is a “delay” here is also distorted, first because the time limitations of the BSO are completely arbitrary and never should have been so prescriptive, second because as discussed in the meeting Traffic has already failed to begin the project in the manner the council keeps asking for on every single bike lane project.”
Again this is absolutely incoherent. The CSO time lines were created to prevent the drawing out of processes intended to save lives (therefore putting people’s lives in danger in the mean time). Yes pushing back the timeline absolutely is a delay. Even the proponents openly talk about it as a delay. You are not adding nuance you are obfuscating.
“Pubic notification, collection of data from businesses and parking mitigation before the project starts.
Rather than the previous methods of chaotic and disruptive break-fix methods used in every other installation this proposal seems to be asking the city to do this project correctly. Not an unreasonable request.”
Bike lanes are fixing the streets not breaking them. The existing design is what is broken and preserving it give the documented dangers is absolutely unreasonable.
It seems that city policy shouldn’t rely on agreements between private property owners. By all means allow those with underutilized lots share or rent them but don’t delay other projects while that plays out. Unless the city is considering buying or building public lots (which hopefully won’t come up as next delay) then this seems like it’s orthogonal to the cso and can be pursued independently.