Amid significant resident criticism this month, members of Cambridge’s City Council introduced a policy order to delay the construction of bike lanes on critical corridors throughout the city until as late as 2027. Initially, they claimed staff had requested this delay, but staff soon clarified that they had made no such request.
Reviewing the perspectives of staff suggests there is no logistical need to delay bike lanes. There is only a political desire by some on the council, not supported by the public.
Typically, city staff approach projects such as bike lanes by looking at hard data, individual feedback from community members over four or more public meetings and many individual discussions. They work with other municipal departments to solve issues such as how to respond to emergencies effectively. And they work to mitigate negative impacts.
It’s not a perfect job – nothing in public works is. But neither are our streets. With bike lanes, these staff do their due diligence to prevent harmful, disproportionate or otherwise ineffective practices from occurring. City staff can delay things when needed, like allowing additional public meetings or responding to problems outside their control. Their decision on timelines is deliberate and measured, taking in all available information.
Therefore, it says something when city staff reject the notion that they are asking for bike lane delays. When the policy order was first presented at the April 8 council meeting, City Manager Yi-An Huang stated that the city was “ready to meet the original timeline” for the Cycling Safety Ordinance. Deputy city manager Owen O’Riordan said, “We are not advocating, at this point in time, for one decision or another.”
Police and fire departments concurred, saying the CSO timeline wouldn’t harm their services. Asked at an April 10 transportation committee hearing whether they had concerns about response times, police commissioner Christine Elow said, “Looking forward, I think we’ll be fine.” Acting fire chief Thomas Cahill noted that the city does not put in bike lanes without the consultation of the fire department and that the city’s goals were “appreciated.”
Essentially, the city can complete construction at the current schedule while doing its best to ensure there won’t be any issues.
If city staff aren’t requesting delays on bike lanes, who is?
The truth is that political calculations and half-truths are causing the delay in developing safe cycling infrastructure, rather than technical or operational constraints managed by city personnel. The position of council members is entirely inconsistent with the words of city staff. From Paul Toner: “This was the staff’s recommendation.” From Ayesha Wilson: “It is the city who shared the language for this proposal.”
This political maneuvering does little to justify the policy order; again, city departments are on board with the original timeline. Most crucially, hundreds of residents have spoken out, fearing the risk pushing back bike lanes poses to their safety. Shifting the responsibility to staff is a way for these councillors to avoid confronting the human cost of crashes and injuries this delay would cause.
The current plans on Main Street, Cambridge Street and Broadway would undoubtedly save hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians from getting hit just going about their day. A city report last year showed that as bike lanes improve, ridership increases and collisions drop.
Considering how dozens of injuries occur per year on these actively dangerous streets, it should be our priority to improve those areas as soon as possible.
Even a few days’ delay can result in more injuries. In Porter Square and Garden Street, people on bikes were injured just before the city installed the bike lanes. Imagine the needless harm from 15 months or more.
If there is no technical need for a delay, then we must not delay. Join us in the fight for safe street infrastructure and mobility justice. We need community advocates from all backgrounds to make their voices heard. Families, students, workers and others can play a crucial role by attending council meetings, contacting city officials and sharing their stories.
Our commitment to change will ensure that safe and reliable transportation is accessible to everyone.
Clyve Lawrence is a student at Harvard College, a transportation columnist in The Harvard Crimson and co-president of the Harvard Undergraduate Urban Sustainability Lab.
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.
Politicians always like to blame unnamed people for their actions and decisions. Blaming a “They” who advised them or told them or who rumored to them is an easy out for responsibility or to hide who actually is pushing something that they have a reason to abide.
Who benefits from a delay? Who is really pushing for it behind the scenes?
It’s not the majority of the voters that want a delay, nor is it a logistics problem for the city departments involved…. so someone believes they will either lose profit, privilege or control of something by the bike lanes continuing on schedule.
Someone is pulling their strings or spreading misinformation to them that makes them think they should drag this out.
Someone thinks they will lose their parking space(s), that it will impact their business or that it will affect the value they will get for selling off a piece of real estate would be my motive guesses… and they apparently don’t want it known that they are behind this attempt to lie to us.
The car lobby relies on constant misinformation.
We mustn’t delay bike lanes any longer. There have already been numerous setbacks.
Studies show bike lanes can reduce accidents by over 50%. Further delay risks preventable injuries and deaths.
Council members backing a delay will bear responsibility for the consequences.
Paul Toner, Joan Pickett and Ayesha Wilson need to stop playing politics with people’s lives. They are just trying to appease a small minority of people who are upset about the possibility of being inconvenienced.
Politicians need to work for the greater good and protect vulnerable people.
There is no evidence that bike lanes are harming business. But we know for sure that people are being hurt and killed on our streets.
Do your job, Cambridge City Council.
Just to put a finer point on it, this decision all comes down to Councillor Patty Nolan. The rest of the Councillors have taken positions one way or the other and are evenly divided.
@Qwerty This certainly increases the pressure on Nolan. However, if the bike lanes are delayed, all those who supported the initiative will share responsibility for the accidents, injuries, or worse that could have been avoided.
And all this due to political pressure fueled by unwarranted fears and misinformation.
To delay bike lanes is so bad, and this proposal is right around Earth day?!!! How can these yahoos can live with themselves: cars emit about 1/3 of all greenhouse gases and biking and walking completely eliminates it. I’m distributing Cambridge bike safety fliers and hope more people write to the council with the message “no more delays”
Write to Patty Nolan and tell her your crash stories. She is the only swayable vote here.
The bike lane delay harms all. Bike lanes enhance street safety for everyone, drivers and pedestrians included (verify this). They also cut pollution and greenhouse gases.
Toner, Pickett, and Wilson prioritize scoring political points with a vocal minority over the greater good, opposing the majority of Cambridge voters who back bike lanes.
Let’s trust Patty Nolan to act for the common good, not politics.
Toner, Pickett, and Wilson must be replaced. They prioritize personal politics over representing their constituents.
@Cambridgejoe – Residents in my neighborhood are not “lying” to you about being terrified of the threat of losing street access to our homes, nor are we spreading misinformation or threatening your safety as you have other options. Our family homes on Broadway will potentially lose ALL STREET ACCESS, we will lose the ability to renovate our homes or bring any commercial vehicle such as construction or repair vehicles, moving vans and storage pods within three blocks of our homes. I have actively questioned many city staffers and city councilors and NO ONE has given me any answers or indication that there will be any kind of remediation or solution for those of us without the luxury of driveways or curb cuts in this extremely dense part of the city. A typical home renovation can take months to years, with access to the site necessary. For us to upkeep our older homes especially when BEUDO goes into effect, most all residents will need to do huge alterations to their homes. Riding a bicycle is a choice, access to city streets for ALL residents is a necessity and a safety issue.
@tccambridge you said a few things that are not true in your post so I’m wondering where you’re getting the info from. Wherever it is, it’s not a good source. Here a few notes in case it helps with any of your fears. And I mean that seriously – because these are facts that should be corrected and will give a better sense of what’s actually going on.
For the record, I live off Broadway in The Port.
1. Homes on Broadway will not “lose street access”. This is not true. Whoever told you this is lying to you. First, go look at Hampshire, Mass Ave, or any other street with updated layouts. They all still have parking, and the city prioritizes keeping the parking that the residents ask for. So in the community process whenever the Broadway project starts, you can share that feedback, and they will prioritize keeping the type of parking the community asks for.
2. The reason no one has given you answers to your questions is that the Broadway Street project literally has not started yet so there are no details or answers to *any* questions about it. There is no proposed design for the project. The project does not exist. So there are no answers to questions because no one (including you, or me, or the city) knows what the proposal will be when the project kicks off. When the project kicks off, then you can decide if you do or don’t like the ideas, and you can share feedback
3. The BEUDO policy that Cambridge passed, and I cannot stress this enough, DOES NOT APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. You can find that with a quick Google search. So you won’t be impacted by this. Again, I’m not sure who is giving you this information, but you should make either stop trusting them or just encourage them to look a bit more closely at the details of some of this.
I truly hope this helps clear up some of the details since it seems like someone has been giving you bad info, which would understandably make the situation seem more concerning than it really is.
@tccambridge This alarmist nonsense overlooks the reality. Homes won’t lose street access; just look at streets with bike lanes.
Driving is a choice; many trips in Cambridge don’t require a car. Prioritizing convenience for a minority risks lives and safety for others.
@tccambridge: Cycling isn’t always optional. Many cyclists are low-income earners or students who can’t afford cars.
Meanwhile, driving is often a choice, for short, convenient trips—errands that could be walked.
We shouldn’t help more people get to work, school, and home safely because you might have your home renovated one day and it might be a little inconvenient?
Ignoring the needs of the economically disadvantaged for personal convenience is a choice, selfish choice.
@tccambridge you appear to many here to be a wealth of misinformation and a of fearmongering about safety issues regarding riders and pedestrians. You are looking like one of those folks I addressed in my original post about “who benefits” that may be edging on the 3 council members that appear to be involved in attempts at delays.
I don’t ride a bicycle nor own/operate a car. I do have legs and I do walk places. As a pedestrian, with limited mobility, I can appreciate the safety improvements that the bicycle lanes present to our streets and the reduction of the number of injuries and deaths that expansion of such brings.
What is your true motive? Inconvenienced? Worried about property value impacts because of you trying to sell out while the real estate market is inflated? Fearful that you will lose your parking space?
@Cambridgejoe – take a breath, I have not mentioned property values or parking ONCE. What I am asking for is that the design of the bike lanes leaves all residents (homeowners, renters and small businesses) access to their homes and businesses. There need to be some accommodations made to those of us directly in the path. As we have seen, some residents are more adversely affected than others. The city planners need to work for better solutions and designs – no one is ripping up the bike lanes, and people claiming so seem to be the fear mongers.
@FrankD Residents at One First Condos would disagree with your assessment – they are not talking about parking and neither am I – they lost access to the loading zone that allowed residents to receive deliveries and have safe sidewalk access. Many of those residents are elders. We are asking for better design and some sort of remediation so that we can live safely, not once have I mentioned removing lanes – you are the alarmist.
@AvgJoe I did not mention driving or personal vehicles ONCE, I am a pedestrian and T rider. No doubt there will be inconveniences for us on Broadway – I am asking that the design of the lanes leave some accommodation so that we are not isolated from the city street. No one is asking you not to cycle, we are asking for an assurance of some sort of accommodation in the design of the lanes. That has nothing to do with “ignoring the needs of the economically disadvantaged for personal convenience” it has everything to do with making sure that these changes do not harm those in the path. You are being selfish if you don’t think all residents deserve a better thought out design.
We must slow this bike lane disaster down and make an honest plan before any further mistakes are made.
“I have not mentioned property values or parking ONCE.”
Bike lanes improve access not reduce it.m, so what do you mean by “access to their homes and businesses” if not parking? It’s very obvious that parking is more petty of a concern than getting home alive so it is clearly more convenient to you to pretend those aren’t the sides here.
“no one is ripping up the bike lanes, and people claiming so seem to be the fear mongers.”
Several of the people involved in this attempted delay do want to remove existing bike lanes too, and do not for one second think they will stop with this delay if they get it.
“I am asking that the design of the lanes leave some accommodation so that we are not isolated from the city street”
Again what does this mean? Bike lanes improve access to the street. How do bike lanes reduce your access to it as a pedestrian and T rider exactly. These projects also have included changes beneficial to pedestrians and T riders like added crossings, bump outs, in lane bus stops etc. You are talking about parking, stop pretending this is something else.
“they lost access to the loading zone”
One first condos is a luxury building with a private garage. If they need dedicated loading space they should create it in there not demand it for free from the city at the expense of street safety.
“not once have I mentioned removing lanes”
Sure you just repeat the fear mongering, out of context, and often simply wrong arguments of the people who do.
“You are being selfish if you don’t think all residents deserve a better thought out design.”
What are your actual problems with the designs? You are selfish if you think your vague concerns about somehow being disconnected from the street by improvements to mobility for bikes and pedestrians outweighs concerns about getting home to one’s family alive.
“We must slow this bike lane disaster down and make an honest plan before any further mistakes are made.”
The bike lanes haven’t been a mistake, they have achieved their safety goals on dangerous streets and are tremendously successful in increasing bike riding numbers. Nothing about this has been a disaster, slowing it down would be. Any day of delay is a day someone could be injured or killed on a dangerously designed street.
@slaw I don’t know where you come from, but in our very congested commercial/residential neighborhood there are many residential properties on Broadway that are accessible only from Broadway. My concern has nothing to do with parking for private vehicles, there is metered parking only, none of us have ever parked anywhere near our homes. But when necessary we have had the ability to reserve and pay for a metered spot or two through the parking department. We do need to know that we will continue to be able to approach our homes with a commercial vehicle for repair and maintenance of our older buildings, or moving in and out as there are also multiple residences with tenants.
Please take a walk through our neighborhood, you will see dozens of homes under construction, note that there are multiple commercial vehicles necessary for this kind of work. On Antrim Street alone I can think of three major renovation projects underway right now. Perhaps you do not have experience with this, but it’s a common situation in any residential area, especially with so many older buildings.
There is also the issue of the heavily used crosswalks on Broadway. It’s hard enough as a pedestrian to cross Broadway safely, contending with the already busy traffic an added two-way bike lane will make it that much more difficult for school children and the many older residents to cross safely. In my experience as a pedestrian, bike lanes do NOT improve access to the street for pedestrians they add another layer of uncertainty by limiting visibility. Cyclists do not always stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, I experience that daily as I walk through Cambridge. There are also many reports of MBTA bus riders exiting from busses where there is a bike lane and cyclists not stopping for them creating a very unsafe situation.
I’m asking for a better design and accommodation for everyone, the city has so far failed to do that in the “quick”rollout of bike lanes, so yes, it’s of great concern. Asking cyclists to follow the rules of the road should be obvious, and the first line of defense for safer streets for all.
I do agree with you on one point; “someone could be injured or killed on a dangerously designed street.” I am asking for better and safer designs for ALL going forward. Cambridge can do better.
All the parking is not being removed. These projects have previously added handicapped parking and loading zones. Sounds like you should be advocating for that rather than fear mongering about it to be honest.
I am familiar with residential reconstruction. It does not suddenly become Impossible on streets with bike lanes. Even if it did an occasional provision for taking some other parking for that use when necessary makes more sense than stopping the bike lane. Having your GC, Plumber, and electrician all park outside at once might be nice but it doesn’t come before the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians.
I haven’t seen any plans for broadway. I assume it would be 2 one way lanes because it should be wide enough for that.
“an added two-way bike lane will make it that much more difficult for school children and the many older residents to cross safely” Even if this is true It will make it safer for them to bike though.
” Cyclists do not always stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, I experience that daily as I walk through Cambridge.”
What does this mean? That they go around you? That they hit you? You are hit every day by bicyclists? I think you are exaggerating a bit, no? I do think bikes should be ready to stop for pedestrians but if they just have space to go around you what’s the problem?
People are remarkably good at avoiding each other at low speeds, including on bikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
“There are also many reports of MBTA bus riders exiting from busses where there is a bike lane and cyclists not stopping for them creating a very unsafe situation.”
Again there is a record of 65 people being hit by cars with 40 of them injured. If this is happening regularly it is rude but there is no comparison between the actual impacts. I can’t find anyone being sent to the hospital from that but people on bikes have died on Cambridge street. Please reflect on the seriousness of that compared to the problems you are using to justify delaying safety improvements.
“Asking cyclists to follow the rules of the road should be obvious, and the first line of defense for safer streets for all.”
No frankly it isn’t, slowing down cars and creating separation on busy and high speed corridors is. The idea that people on bikes are the issue for not knowing how to keep themselves safe is really misguided. There are still many instances where the law (such as not treating stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs for bikes) actually is worse for bike safety.
Notably these projects include improvements for pedestrians like adding crossings, improving sidewalks, raised crossings etc. The concern clearly isn’t really about that.
You are still incredibly non-specific about what you would like to see instead, while railing on bike infrastructure and people on bikes in general. What do you actually want?
Bike lane advocates are using very inflated numbers – why not the truth?
The agenda package for this week’s City Council has published numbers from MA DOT that say there are, on average, 6 “Minor Injuries” and Zero “Major Injuries” or “Fatalities” in this Cambridge Street area. Of those, 4+ injuries occurred at intersections – bike lanes cannot cross intersections.
THE PROBLEM IS AT INTERSECTION WHERE OVER 70% OF INJURIES OCCUR. BIKE LANES DON’T HELP.
The proposed bike lanes address fewer than two minor injuries per year on Cambridge Street, according to the DOT and the City’s published figures.
Let’s stick with the truth.
jh
“ Bike lane advocates are using very inflated numbers – why not the truth?”
That’s rich coming from one of the people who sued the city to block bike lanes and remove existing ones and constantly lied in the process. The numbers cited by activist groups come from city crash reports. You are just like a climate denier pretending evidence you don’t like doesn’t exist.
“The agenda package for this week’s City Council has published numbers from MA DOT that say there are, on average, 6 “Minor Injuries” and Zero “Major Injuries” or “Fatalities” in this Cambridge Street area”
Over what period of time? I’d also point out that Cambridge city crash records are likely more accurate than state data because these are city roads and the state has no jurisdiction in enforcing traffic violations on them.
“Of those, 4+ injuries occurred at intersections – bike lanes cannot cross intersections. THE PROBLEM IS AT INTERSECTION WHERE OVER 70% OF INJURIES OCCUR. BIKE LANES DON’T HELP.”
Bike lanes can help at intersections if you do things like they did at Inman square and make protected intersections, signal separation, etc. Your organization has opposed those projects. Are you now coming out in favor of protected intersections?
See more on protected intersections: https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design-0/download
“The proposed bike lanes address fewer than two minor injuries per year on Cambridge Street, according to the DOT and the City’s published figures.”
The city’s stats show an order of magnitude more injuries.
“ Let’s stick with the truth.”
Let’s. It seems to be you who struggles with it.