A policy order about bike lane installation in Cambridge that some saw as a “delay” and some saw as an “extension” to be used only if needed passed the City Council early Tuesday on a 5-4 vote.
The vote took place just after midnight from a Monday meeting because more than 300 people signed up to speak on the order. That took from 5:30 p.m. until 11:10 p.m., and councillors decided they had time at the meeting to handle only the one item, leaving everything else on the agenda for a rare resumed meeting starting at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
Councillor Patty Nolan was the swing vote, and she sided with the councillors looking to extend the deadline on the city’s Cycling Safety Ordinance by a year and a half around the installation of bike lanes on Main Street, Cambridge Street and Broadway. The change would prevent installation there under the original timeline of May 1, 2026, pushing the date to Nov. 1, 2027, unless zoning is enacted to make up for lost parking spaces through allowing private parking to be shared.
“It’s torn me up,” Nolan said, reading off a long statement to give her reasons for voting as she did: The city has learned from rough bike lane installations in the westerly parts of the city, and “we should take the time to do it better for the east side.”
The kind of language around deadlines voted at this meeting probably should have been in the 2019 ordinance and its 2020 amendment all along, Nolan said.
Her statement was so long that Mayor E. Denise Simmons tried to cut Nolan off – repeatedly.
Along with Nolan and Simmons, councillors in favor were Paul Toner, Joan Pickett and Ayesha Wilson.
Those opposed were councillors Burhan Azeem, Sumbil Siddiqui and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler and vice mayor Marc McGovern.
McGovern summed up his critique of the order as “Extension, delay, tomato, to-mah-to,” and said his vote was driven by concerns about bicyclists such as his son. “Let’s do it within the current timeline, because I for one just don’t want to keep my fingers crossed for another 18 months” that there are no more bicyclist deaths.
Nearly all of the 300 public speakers were opposed to the order for the same reasons as McGovern – safety – but resident Audrey Cunningham, speaking late in the meeting, said she had a petition with 400 names supporting delayed installation with new parking zoning in place. She described it as a “silent majority of seniors, pedestrians and every other resident who lives and shops here” who believed “there was no reason why the date for completion for bike lanes cannot be extended until all voices are heard and their well-being given equal consideration” with the proponents who were concerned about their lives and safety. A rough count of a petition taking up multiple pages in the night’s council agenda packet of 1,734 pages showed around 350 names in support of a potential delay in installation.
Simmons picked up Cunningham’s theme. “When I say I want everyone to be safe, I have to think about senior citizens who were conspicuously absent from this meeting, in part because they can’t get out late at night or they don’t want to, they feel very unheard,” she said. “I just had a meeting with over 30 senior citizens – we were talking about something else, but of course bikes came into the conversation – and the big thing that they always say over and over is that we don’t feel safe, but most importantly, we don’t feel heard.”
That extended beyond senior citizens to people with disabilities, Simmons said.
The meeting was held in a hybrid fashion, allowing people to call in or use their computers to attend and speak, and there were several senior voices during public comment – with around a dozen of them bicyclists who supported the installation of protective infrastructure or pedestrians who said the lanes made them feel safer as well.
There was also a voice from among residents with disabilities, Sarah Dylan Breuer, who said bike lanes made it easier for her to get around the city on her wheelchair. “It’s about so much more than cycling,” she said. “If you notice tree roots growing in the sidewalk, they push the paving stones up, they create these cliffs and a wheelchair gets caught on them. People take their trash out, they leave the can on the curb. People put out a basketball hoop, they leave the basketball hoop on the curb. Where does my mobility go when that happens? It goes into the street.”
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.
Patty Nolan has really upset a lot of people that voted for her, including me.
I look forward to leaving Patty Nolan off of my ballot.
I expected as much from townie voices such as Pickett and Toner– but shame on Nolan. I’ll remember this elections come rolling around again, and I’ll remember her every time I pass another ghost bike memorial in this city. Terrible.
A profound step backwards for bike safety in Cambridge. Since Cambridge has been a model for the rest of the state and country this doesn’t bode well in general. Cambridge sets the tone on this and has said it is ok to delay safety improvements in order to maximize the comfort of drivers. Shame.
Shame on Patty Nolan and her frankly incoherent justification this runs counter to everything she claims to support, most notably climate goals. You cannot take climate change seriously and prioritize parking over bike safety.
Shame on Denise Simmons for claiming seniors and disabled people were conspicuously absent despite multiple of both groups speaking in opposition to the delay, saying bikes are their mobility devices, bike lanes are better for wheel chairs, and that these projects also improve ADA accessibility, crosswalks etc. These people clearly don’t count as real seniors and disabled people the way car drivers do. Incredible to speak of representing all of the community as an excuse to ignore the hundreds of comments from people from all ages, races, and walks of life opposing the delay in favor of three people in support (at least two of whom were personally involved in suing the city to remove all bike lanes). Some people clearly count more to her than others.
Of course shame on Paul Toner, Joan Pickett, and Ayesha Wilson too but no one expected them to do anything except value parking over peoples’ lives.
They all showed how little care they have for the safety of the community, while treating profit and parking as sacrosanct. What a complete devaluation of human life.
This delay is a travesty. It means people will get hurt and die. It means more fossil fuel emissions. I was at the city council meeting: almost all people came to testify against the delay and many brought their children who also cycle and who will be hurt by any accident. The late “petition” is so convenient, isn’t it? A “silent majority” is pretty convenient trick to use, they always agree with whoever is invoking them. Councilor Nolan gave a long list of nonsensical reasons; for someone who constantly claims to be an environmentalist, her vote in favor of NOT switching away from cars shows her true colors. Shame on our city government who ignored the 99% of people asking to implement the safe bike lanes according to schedule.
Welp. Patty Nolan just lost my vote. My kid is supposed to start riding her bike to CRLS in 2026 and I expected her to have a safe route by then. If anyone is seriously injured during this ‘extension’– particularly the high school kids who use Cambridge and Broadway to get to school– it will be on her and her business-first colleagues.
Nolan said, reading off a long statement to give her reasons for voting as she did: The city has learned from rough bike lane installations in the westerly parts of the city, and “we should take the time to do it better for the east side.”
Ms. Nolan, it’s about to get much worse in West Cambridge.
Depending on the time of day, if someone stands at Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen Avenue (just to the East of Star Market), there are 150, 250, 500 cars for every bicycle. Slaw, go out and see for yourself.
Now the city, in its infinite wisdom, is going to change, once again, the bicycle lanes as well as the lanes for cars. Look at the proposed changes. It will be so confusing at Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen, and Mt. Auburn and Homer Street, that accidents are going to happen at a much greater rate than has been the case for the last two years. Count on it.
Who dreams this stuff up? Brattle, particularly at the junction of Ash, Mason and Brattle, is a disaster waiting to happen. It is so ill conceived that a lot of cars making a right turn from Mason on to Brattle, wind up in the bike lane. Someone on a bicycle is going to get hurt. Other accidents waiting to happen.
We need bike lanes. However, the lanes have to be well thought out. In West Cambridge they are not.
This delay lacks justification. Bike lanes don’t harm businesses; it’s merely a vocal minority complaining about parking convenience.
Despite hearing extensive testimony about hospitalizations, injuries, close calls, and concerned family members, they prioritized the demands of a small, selfish group.
This delay may lead to more accidents, even fatalities. Nolan, Toner, Pickett, Wilson, and Simmons will be accountable for any consequences. It’s time for them to be voted out.
So much for “progressive” Cambridge setting an example for other cities on how to increase safety and address climate change. Instead, a bunch of short-sighted selfish people win the day.
Unless the reporter personally verified the petition, which has not appeared publicly from what I’ve seen, it should not be credited without obtaining a copy and confirming the names and addresses.
I disagree with Noland’s rationale. As far as I can tell the only “rough” part of the bike lane installation so far has been residents and businesses complaining about lost parking and changed traffic patterns. I understand those concerns, but those complaints will always come. There is no way to implement the bike lanes and make everyone happy and from my perspective the vast majority of Cantabrians want bike lanes.
Sanity prevails! There is hope!
C43 hit the nail on the head. The “experts” designing these so called bike lanes are the reason for this pause. Don’t blame Patty or any councilor. If anything the councilors pausing will get more votes next time!
Blame the terrible, awful, chaotic, non maintained apocalyptic designs that have already been done. The traffic implosion the lack of any maintenance; paint peeled up all over the place, missing pylons it’s pathetic.
Blame the “experts” if you want to blame anyone.
@concerned43
You know this isn’t true: “Depending on the time of day, if someone stands at Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen Avenue (just to the East of Star Market), there are 150, 250, 500 cars for every bicycle. Slaw, go out and see for yourself.”
This has already been pointed out to you. Last time you claimed 75 cars to every bicycle. Even that was shown to be wrong now you have doubled, tripled, and more than sextupled your made up figures.
It was pointed out to you then that the actual figure is closer to 3:1 and on streets like Hampshire with good bike infrastructure bikes now outnumber cars. It is obvious there will be more cars then bikes when the city and its infrastructure continue to cater to the comfort of drivers at the expense of bike safety.
“ accidents are going to happen at a much greater rate than has been the case for the last two years. Count on it.” Again despite your claims about this for every new piece of bike infrastructure the opposite is true in reality. Crashes have consistently reduced after bike lane installations in Cambridge: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf
These accidents you claim bike lanes cause haven’t been happening meanwhile bicyclists continue to get doored in door zone bike lanes and hit by cars on streets without them.
“C43 hit the nail on the head. The “experts” designing these so called bike lanes are the reason for this pause.”
The opponents of bike safety have to constantly lie because your actual beliefs are detestable. The experts explicitly said the project is able to move forward on the existing timeline. They were told to write this language by city councilors and explicitly said they were not endorsing it or saying it was necessary.
Bike lanes should be maintained better. That is not a reason not to add more bike lanes. Are potholes a reason to take away street space for cars? Cars and trucks actually cause the potholes, and they also knock down the pylons too. But for some reason every problem means bikes should lose.
Very disappointed that lack of reason prevailed at the council last night. Approximately 290 people showed up and begged the council (really just Patty Nolan) to not delay safety improvements in eastern Cambridge, and she did not relent.
After 6 hours, we then had to listen to her recount her history of pushing for protected safe infrastructure in neighborhood – which now has – as she then voted to delay the same safe infrastructure in my neighborhood.
And her comment that once construction starts, it won’t be stopped is completely disingenuous when some council members have campaigned on ripping out bike lanes.
Toner, Pickett, Simmons and Wilson want to perpetuate car-dominated culture in Cambridge, and in particular keep east Cambridge a thoroughfare for high volume, high speed drivers passing through.
They just got a huge assist from Patty Nolan.
Now, in 2 years, when there’s a new city council, we will see another attempt to slow or undo safe infrastructure.
@prc Nonsense.
The bike lanes in Cambridge are state-of-the-art, as testified by an urban planner last night and are considered a model for other cities.
However, critics like Cambridge Streets For All (Cars) seem to disregard this expert opinion.
Patty Nolan’s rationale was unconvincing, costing her my vote. She seems more focused on her political interests than the greater good.
Councilor Nolan, thank you for standing up to this unfair pressure, you know that previous designs are flawed and you are now taking heat for protecting all residents, not just cycling lobbyists. As an older pedestrian, longtime resident and public transit user I applaud you for speaking out for city residents who want safe design for ALL, we all deserve to travel safety. Cambridge can do better – design subsequent bike lanes so that we all feel protected and are safely able to access our properties. If better design is accomplished there won’t be a delay. And, yes, this obviously should have been a piece of the original CSO.
Nolan’s ideas about what is flawed include things like being upset that no right on red was implemented, which every study on the topic shows is safer for all road users. The only actually substantive disagreements would make projects worse not better. There is nothing noble about this reactionary crusade against street safety improvements, and it will result in people being injured hopefully no one is killed.
Education and enforcement of the rules of the road would go a long way to promote safety for all. Let’s take this time to educate and plan better so we can all feel heard and protected.
It is an uninformed oversimplification to declare that no cycle tracks = cyclist deaths and no cycle tracks = no deaths.
It is an uninformed oversimplification to declare that no cycle tracks = cyclist deaths and cycle tracks = no deaths.
@pattyorland.
Well, in fact, it’s not oversimplified. Its simply true. If Amanda Phillips was knocked off her bike in Inman Sq. as configured now, she wouldn’t have been killed. The same accident today further east on Cambridge St. might well result in serious injury or worse.
Study after study nationally and internationally support the fact that protected bike lanes in urban setting improve safety.
@pattyorland That was oversimplification and incorrect.
No one says that bike lanes *eliminate* accidents and death. Bike lanes have been proven to *reduce* accidents by 50% or more.
Therefore, there will be *more accidents without bike lanes* than there would be with bike lanes.
These councilors will be responsible for that. Perhaps especially Patty Nolan, who turned her back on the people that help elect her.
@tccambridge Do you really believe that more road rule education will solve our problems?
Every year, cars kill 50,000 people in the US, and injuries are ten times more common. We already have driver’s education—wouldn’t these numbers be lower if education alone were the solution?
Plus, despite state troopers patrolling the highways, speeding persists.
We need practical solutions, not wishful thinking.
As you’ll find out soon enough avgjoe she and the others that prioritized streets for everyone, paused and took a breath before destroying other parts of the city they’ll get MORE votes.
Not sure anyone is against bike lanes. The experts as you and others claim have done more damage to the bike lanes being implemented than anyone.
The designs, implementations and ongoing maintenance or lack thereof are a joke. If they weren’t such a complete joke the vote would have been unanimous to move forward.
@ Slaw
You said:
You know this isn’t true: “Depending on the time of day, if someone stands at Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen Avenue (just to the East of Star Market), there are 150, 250, 500 cars for every bicycle. Slaw, go out and see for yourself.”
This has already been pointed out to you. Last time you claimed 75 cars to every bicycle. Even that was shown to be wrong now you have doubled, tripled, and more than sextupled your made up figures.
It was pointed out to you then that the actual figure is closer to 3:1 and on streets like Hampshire with good bike infrastructure bikes now outnumber cars.”
Slaw, It is true. I know little about Hampshire, but I know a lot about Mt. Auburn.
Depending on the time of day the ratio is 150, 250, 500 cars for every bicycle. That’s a fact.
Your 3:1 might be on a few streets, though I doubt it, but come to Star Market in West Cambridge some time and open your eyes. Come on a nice day about 8 AM or 5 PM when bike riders should be plentiful. You’ll see that my figures are not an exaggeration.
You can speak about Hampshire and other streets not in West Cambridge, but frankly you really don’t know what you are talking about with regard to this area of the city, particularly on Mt. Auburn and Brattle. And, it’s only going to get much worse once the new plans are implemented on Mt. Auburn.
Additionally, it is only a matter of time before a bicyclist gets hurt, or killed, coming east on Brattle at the corner of Ash, Mason and Brattle. The bike will be close to the intersection as the car makes a sharp right on to Brattle, a right turn with no sight line into the bike route.
I’m all for bike lanes in Cambridge, when they are done properly. Unfortunately, on Brattle and Mt. Auburn that is not the case.
No one claimed that it is impossible for people on bikes to die in protected bike lanes. However it is completely uninformed nonsense to claim that protected bike lanes do not reduce the likelihood of it happening and generally protect cyclists. There is tons of evidence supporting that argument.
That should have been:
The bike will be close to the intersection as the car makes a sharp right on to Brattle into the bike lane, a right turn with no sight line into the bike route.
Councilor Nolan offered a strong rationale for her vote and has earned the respect of voters too often overlooked and discounted. Ironically on social media cyclists are suggesting recall of elected officials. Once you don’t get precisely what you want, people need to be removed from office. Really?? The petition was duly signed and presented. Mostly these are people not usually at the table or able to engage in public comment. It is refreshing that Councilors are giving them a voice. Councilor Nolan was never getting the cyclist vote anyway. She has now earned the respect and support of many others. Special thank you to Toner, Pickett, Simmons, Wilson and Nolan for giving voice to those who were never at the table. I personally was helping a senior citizen who had logged on and signed up to speak. As it turned out, she was streaming the meeting so that when she was called, she was considered not present. The city has set up a protocol and process that favors a much younger and technically savvy populous! It is actually shameful.
@MightyMouse Yes, thank you for speaking up, these amplified voices are not the majority, they are just the loudest. Most, if not all of these people will not be impacted as they are transient and rent or live on streets not highly impacted.
Glad that reason prevailed. There is a reason some of these councilors were elected. Not all streets are appropriate for bike lanes and we need to take the time to make sure we are doing this right and not having a deeply negative impact on the economics of this area. People are acting like an 18 month pause is the end of the world. It’s not.
“ The designs, implementations and ongoing maintenance or lack thereof are a joke. If they weren’t such a complete joke the vote would have been unanimous to move forward.”
This is almost as bad faith as the supporters of the delay were on the council floor. When you have people on the council who literally sued the city to remove all bike lanes, they will never support them even if all evidence indicates that they improve safety, reduce emissions, increase cycling rates, and don’t hurt businesses (oh wait it already does).
@tccambridge What makes you think that the majority of Cantabridgians are anti-bike lane? The pro-bike lane councilors won first-round votes by a wide margin over the councilors that voted to delay implementation. This is even more true when you exclude Nolan from that count, as her previous voting record on bike safety projects earned her a spot on Cambridge Bicycle Safety’s election mailer.
@ concerned43 “ Depending on the time of day the ratio is 150, 250, 500 cars for every bicycle. That’s a fact.”
That is not a fact. The source of this information is rectal. You were orders of magnitude wrong about your previous claim I’m certain you will be similarly wrong about this absurd claim. If someone actually has the numbers.
Your 3:1 might be on a few streets, though I doubt it, but “come to Star Market in West Cambridge some time and open your eyes. Come on a nice day about 8 AM or 5 PM when bike riders should be plentiful. You’ll see that my figures are not an exaggeration.“
I actually bike by there pretty often. My doctor is over there and I have some friends nearby as well. I am never the only one biking. Far from it. It’s also worth noting that the best bike infrastructure there is hidden from street level and if given your windshield perspective you probably aren’t even aware of that.
Also the bike infrastructure on street level literally just went in, shifting behavior patterns takes at least 6 months. New ridership from that installation hasn’t appeared yet.
It is clear you are the one who doesn’t know what you are talking about. This is all probably more of a response than you deserve for numbers you made up on the spot.
The intersection of Ash, Mason and Brattle was terrible and dangerous before the bike path went in. It has bad sight lines. The bike lane has at least made it approachable on a bike and drivers nominally aware that you might be there. It has been an improvement. Are there tweaks that could make it better? Sure I prefer one way bike lanes to two way ones for example. But taking it out would only make it worse.
“ I’m all for bike lanes in Cambridge, when they are done properly. Unfortunately, on Brattle and Mt. Auburn that is not the case.”
Despite the first claim I have never seen you speak positively about any bike infrastructure in the city, and by US standards at least we have some of the best bike lanes around. What’s a bike lane you do support?
@MIghtyMouse
The idea that business owners and car drivers are the unheard masses is frankly ridiculous. They are some of the most over represented and prioritized groups in the city relative to their size.
“ The petition was duly signed and presented.” so where is it then? And why are people citing ICJ vastly different numbers of signatures?
“ Councilor Nolan was never getting the cyclist vote anyway.”
Councilor Nolan was literally endorsed by Cambridge Bike Safety. She betrayed her own supporters here.
at least a dozen senior citizens spoke and opposed the delay, emphasizing it would make them particularly less safe and also delay new crosswalks and ADA accessibility improvements. Simmons then pretended they didn’t exist by saying seniors had been “conspicuously absent” it is clear that to you and her seniors and people in general aren’t real people unless they own a car.
“Not all streets are appropriate for bike lanes and we need to take the time to make sure we are doing this right and not having a deeply negative impact on the economics of this area.”
All of these streets are busy and traffic heavy streets with numerous destinations, exactly the kind of street that needs bike lanes to be safe to bike and cannot work with shared space treatments (at least not without seriously reigning in cars beyond what these proposals would do). Bike lanes are the compromise to actually pedestrian first streets.
There is no evidence at all that bike lanes hurt business (in fact there is considerable evidence to the contrary).
An 18 month delay is not the end of the world but it could be the end of someone’s life on a street the city already knows is unsafe and specifically identified for improvements for a reason. It is also completely unnecessary according to city staff and an entirely self imposed step backwards on street safety. Something doesn’t literally have to be Armageddon to be terrible.
@cwec I never said that the “majority” of residents are anti-bike lane – I did say that the majority of residents that will be negatively affected are quite concerned that we will not be heard. If you live on a side street that is unaffected or have the luxury of a curb cut you are safe, those of us in the path feel that we are not heard or accommodated and have not been given any assurance that our situation will be accommodated.
Multiple people with addresses on Cambridge street, Main Street, and Broadway spoke in favor of the bike lanes and against the delay. They were in fact the ones who were not heard.
You got what you wanted and you are still whining about it. There is no satisfying those who place their comfort over others safety.
Great news! Cambridge will continue to implement our bike infrastructure with less chaos, disruption and polarization than the most recent, rushed projects.
Thanks Patty for having the integrity to do what’s right for the entire city.
We should all be proud of our progress instead of bickering over arbitrary timelines.
We are closer to meeting our climate and safety goals than any other community in the Commonwealth.
Time to celebrate instead of this insufferable kvetching.
@tccambridge You didn’t say anti-bike people are the majority, but you did say that the pro-bike lane people are not the majority, which is not the case.
@kdolan “We are closer to meeting our climate and safety goals than any other community in the Commonwealth.” is to me, an absolutely useless metric. We’re not attempting to reduce carbon emissions because of some competition with other municipalities, we’re doing it because the alternative is worse. Any unnecessary delay in carbon reducing—or safety improving—measures is a step further away from our goals as a city.
It would be easier to see this as a necessary compromise if:
1) city staff actually requested this delay (they didn’t)
2) the sponsoring councilors weren’t so disingenuous about their motives, namely Pickett, and
3) there was any data to support this decision.
As it stands, pro-bike councilors overwhelmingly won popular support in November’s elections, the vast majority of people that showed up to Monday’s meeting were in opposition to the policy order, and all available data (including Cambridge-specific data) has shown either no harm or explicit benefits in implementing these safety projects.
@ slaw
You said : “I actually bike by there pretty often. My doctor is over there and I have some friends nearby as well. I am never the only one biking.”
Good to see that there is one other person aside from you.
Why don’t we settle this. In early June, let’s stand out in front of Star Market and see whose ratio is closest, your 3:1 or my 150:1. If you want, we can even have a small side bet. That is, the loser has to admit on this site that he was wrong. Either your claim is going to be correct or mine is.
By the way, immediately after Star Market, Watertown starts. All bike riders coming east are not Cambridge bike riders. If you go to the right, you’re on Belmont Street. There are only three blocks that are in Cambridge; Belmont starts after those three blocks. So almost all the few, and there are very few, riders coming east are from Belmont and beyond, not Cambridge riders.
The city is in the process of making Mount Auburn Street, opposite the entrance to the cemetery, a disaster area. It was terrible before the ill thought out plan, now….
@kdolan: “ Great news! Cambridge will continue to implement our bike infrastructure with less chaos, disruption and polarization than the most recent, rushed projects”
What are you basing this off of? The opponents of these projects are still not satisfied they still claim they haven’t been heard even as they get their way. This will only embolden the opponents of street safety to try to delay every subsequent project, using this as precedent. Then we are back to square one that motivated the CSO in the first place, safety projects being dragged out for years by bad faith actors.
Patty Nolan voted for the CSO because she recognized that as a problem but clearly she lacks object permanence and has now undermined that and betrayed her own base.
“We are closer to meeting our climate and safety goals than any other community in the Commonwealth.”
Who cares? By global standards MA has extremely high emissions. Being the least bad of the bunch isn’t a victory. Climate goals aren’t a competition to see who can win. We all need to meet them as fast as possible to have any hope of a livable future for our children and grand children. The faster you reduce emissions the better (look into emission tails). Delay is a profound step backwards for both safety and climate.
@akcg The delay is a tactic by Pickett, Toner, and others to halt or eliminate bike lanes.
This delay risks preventable accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Cambridge won’t lead in sustainability or combatting climate change.
Selfishness prioritizing personal convenience over community safety will harm everyone.
Patty Nolan’s actions betray those who supported her, marking a crucial turning point.
An 18-month delay isn’t the end of the world? Tell that to the people who end up in the hospital or morgue because of this delay.
@ concerned43
You can compare the number of bikers at Star Market. Just remember that many ride to it using the trail behind the store. The new lane there is awesome, it almost connects the protected Mt Auburn st to the newly protected Trapelo Rd in Belmont. The larger point still stands: we need to shift away from cars to safer and better ways of getting around like public transportation and biking.
The city will do actually scientifically accurate traffic measurements around the bike lane as they have done for others let’s wait for those numbers rather than a child’s science experiment version. Your made up numbers have been shown to be wrong every time you have made them up. I have no interest in spending any more of my time debunking them.
If you want to go out and count cars and bikes go ahead, make sure you also count on the Cambridge Watertown greenway.
“ By the way, immediately after Star Market, Watertown starts. All bike riders coming east are not Cambridge bike riders. If you go to the right, you’re on Belmont Street. There are only three blocks that are in Cambridge; Belmont starts after those three blocks. So almost all the few, and there are very few, riders coming east are from Belmont and beyond, not Cambridge riders.”
What nonsense. You realize it is possible for people in Cambridge to bike to Watertown and then bike back right?
Also so what? By your logic you could say the same thing about the cars but that doesn’t bother you. Why should Cambridge cater to cars from Belmont and Watertown but not to bikes from the same places? Your argument doesn’t make any sense.
Two days later and I am still just so angry at Patty Nolan for her betrayal.
People remember how you make them feel, and Nolan should appreciate just how angry she made her constituents feel. November 2025 cannot come soon enough.
Consider the following:
252 speakers opposed delays, while only 10 supported them.
The Council received 1,000 emails advocating for safer streets, compared to 600 supporting the delay.
Perhaps it’s time for the Council to truly represent the Cambridge community rather than yielding to a vocal minority that lacks evidence in their arguments.
This is particularly relevant to Patty Nolan, who professes to be an “unapologetic advocate for justice, facts, and science,” yet appeared to champion the contrary last Monday.
What a shame to the memory of those who have died in crashes over the years. I feel for the families in which this setback is even more emotionally charged. I hope they reverse their decision.
Has anyone told Patty Nolan that EVs kill cyclists and pedestrians the same way gasoline cars do?