A law requiring 29 miles of protected bike lanes to be built in Somerville by 2030 passed the City Council on Thursday. The Safe Streets Ordinance is similar to the Cycling Safety Ordinance in neighboring Cambridge that was passed in 2019 with a 2020 amendment setting the timeline to install approximately 25 miles of separated bike lanes by May 1, 2026.
In Cambridge, there was an almost instant “bikelash,” two failed lawsuits and now a delay on most remaining CSO separated bike lanes to Nov. 1, 2027, as the city tries to figure out changes to parking that will ease the loss of street parking on tight roads now needing to squeeze in room for bicyclists outside car traffic. An ongoing debate has questioned how less parking affects businesses.
Like in Cambridge, calls for bike lanes accelerated with the deaths of bicyclists.
Somerville residents rallied for better bike lanes in 2022 after the death of Stephen Conley, 72, who was riding in a bike lane near Teele Square that left him vulnerable to a “dooring”: Someone in a parked car opened a door into him. The law calls for protected bike lanes, in which cyclists are separated from the flow of motor traffic, such as by bollards.
The Safe Streets Ordinance is the culmination of two years of advocacy following Conley’s death.
“Thoughts and prayers are not enough,” said Willie Burnley Jr., the at-large councilor who sponsored the law. “As members of government, we have a precious and crucial duty to do as much as we can to enact the kind of life-saving measures that are necessary to ensure that every member of our community is safe when they leave their home.”
Among the public speakers was Susan Sheng, of the Cambridge Bicycle Safety group, who praised the law as part of a comprehensive network that allowed cyclists to travel widely with confidence. “Given how interconnected our cities are, a comprehensive bike lane network that spans Somerville and Cambridge will make cycling a more attractive and viable transportation option for residents and visitors alike,” Sheng said. “Just imagine being able to safely navigate everywhere across our cities for errands, for work or leisure without feeling limited by piecemeal bike-lane segments.”
Impassioned comment also came from Somerville resident Tadhg Pearson, who was hit while bicycling on Highland Avenue.
“I was really lucky not to die,” Pearson said. “So many people were not so lucky.”
Pearson also expressed frustration around pedestrian safety in Somerville, recalling how a stroller he was pushing while on his way to pick up his child from preschool was hit by a car. While the ordinance focuses on protected bike lanes, it will require improvements to sidewalks and crosswalks on streets with protected bike lanes.
It will also require the city to be more transparent about its construction progress by having a public website showing the number of installed protected bike lanes and by presenting an annual report to the City Council about progress made in the previous year, starting March 1.
The Somerville Bicycle Network Plan was released last fall. The City’s goal is for 15 percent of residents to travel by bicycle in 2050. Many Somerville residents who were surveyed for the plan said they do not regularly bike because of safety concerns, so more protected bicycle lanes will be needed for Somerville to meet the goal.
Council president Ben Ewen-Campen addressed the tension around bike lanes affecting both cities.
“There’s a weird amount of acrimony,” said Ewen-Campen, of Ward 3. “I think it’s completely misguided. I often hear stereotypes that all cyclists are rich tech bros going 30 miles an hour. First of all, those people deserve to live too, but just go outside. There are kids, there are elderly people, there are guys getting off work at Market Basket on bikes. This is about keeping people safe as they try to get to and from their house, their friends’ houses, their jobs. I’m incredibly grateful that in this community the elected officials see the basic facts around how important safety is.”
All Somerville city councilors voted in favor of the Safe Streets Ordinance except Naima Sait of Ward 5, who was absent.
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.
Cambridge, are you going to let Somerville one up you like this? More mileage, more aggressive timeline, broader scope. Cambridge has some catching up to do now.
It would be nice AND safer if the bikers follow the local traffic laws. Red lights, stop signs, stop weaving in out and all around, going up/down one ways, wear helmets etc. Not all accidents are due to autos it’s just easier to blame.
“Cyclists are lawless” is always the refrain from drivers. You never seem to worry about the lawlessness of drivers. Speeding, running red lights, failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, parking illegally including blocking bike lanes. Why is the illegal behavior of one type of road user (one type that never ever kills anyone with their illegal behavior) more serious than that of another road user that literally leads to 40000+ deaths on our roads every year? If you care about safety, the illegal behavior you care about is when people are driving cars and trucks. I have personally been hit by a car on my bike (the car jumped a red light and would have killed me if I didn’t flame on my brakes and only go flying over his hood, even though I had a green light) and on foot when I was in a cross walk and a car that was illegally parked in that crosswalk backed up into me as they pulled out. That’s the kind of illegal behavior they actually leads to fatalities.
Treating red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yields on a bike is proven to be safer (allows you to get ahead of cars and be visible rather than staying in blind spots, reduces right hooks, etc). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration explicitly states that bike crashes go down in states that have implemented it. Following the current law literally makes bikes less safe. The law should be changed to reflect best practices. Tranhttps://www.nhtsa.gov/document/bicyclist-stop-yield-laws-and-safety-fact-sheet
“stop weaving in out and all around”
This is not against the law. Bikes are entitled to the full use of the lane. They are allowed to pass on the right and on the left. One of the major advantages of a bike is you don’t have to be stuck in traffic, you just seem bitter about that.
“going up/down one ways”
Many one ways in Cambridge and Somerville explicitly allow this. And they should bikes take up much less space than cars and bikes going in both directions can easily fit in many spaces where two way car traffic can’t. Both cities could do more road treatments, signage, and education to drivers to make them aware that cyclists are allowed to do this but they should not restrict this, they should expand it.
“wear helmets”
Adults in MA (any one 17 or older actually) are not required to wear a helmet. I suggest you actually bother to learn the rules of the road before demanding other people follow rules you made up.
“Not all accidents are due to autos it’s just easier to blame.”
You, on the other hand, clearly find it easier to blame the victim.
@samsternjones it’s not true that cyclists “never ever kill anyone.“ There have been a number of cyclist-caused pedestrian deaths in NYC, and quite a few serious injuries. Here in the Boston area, while no deaths have yet to be recorded, there have also been pedestrians who have sustained severe injuries.
What’s that number? How does that number compare to the number of pedestrians killed by cars in NYC? (Hint the number killed by cars is multiple orders of magnitude higher). Again please provide an example of the serious injuries to a pedestrian caused by a bicyclist in the Boston area. It is very easy to find dozens of examples of cyclists and pedestrians killed by cars.
You are really dedicated to everyone taking these extremely rare incidents extremely seriously but you seem to completely ignore the far more common and statistically significant danger to pedestrians and bicyclists by cars. Why do you take this infinitesimally smaller risk so much more seriously?
@AllisS Cars cause >90% of the deaths on our streets. Nearly 8000 pedestrians are killed in the US every year. Almost all of them by cars, almost none by bikes. The biggest threat to safety on the streets is cars by a very, very, very wide margin.
@AllisS In 2023, 69 pedestrians were killed in MA. *All* by cars. If we want to improve the safety of our streets, it is clear that cars are the problem. not bikes.
“There are kids, there are elderly people, there are guys getting off work at Market Basket on bikes.”
The largest group of bike commuters are low-income earners who can’t afford cars and deserve protection.
While Somerville and Boston are implementing bike lanes, Cambridge prioritizes the convenience of the elite over the safety of disadvantaged people, influenced by selfish NIMBYs.”
NYC has an Open Data portal where you can look at fatality numbers.
There were 12 crashes where pedestrians were killed by bikes, 4 by scooter, assuming I filtered it right, between 2017 and 2024.
There were 889 pedestrians killed total during that period.
So bikes + scooters were responsible for 1.8% of pedestrians deaths in the past 7.5 years.
If you want to check my numbers (please do, I might’ve made a mistake somewhere): https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/Motor-Vehicle-Collisions-Crashes/h9gi-nx95/about_data
When will Toner and Wilson realize that increasing population and more cars cause traffic? The only solution is to provide alternatives to driving.
Yet, against the advice of transportation experts, they resist these efforts. Toner, Wilson, Pickett, and now Nolan are driving us toward gridlock, pollution, global warming, and unsafe streets.
Meanwhile, we’re “on the road to climate hell.” But go ahead, Cambridge City Council, keep enabling the problem.
Clearly, Somerville will have to lead. The Cambridge City Council is more concerned with the whims of NIMBYs prioritizing personal convenience over the future.