After bike lanes were added to Garden Street in West Cambridge in October 2022, taking up enough roadway that a five-block stretch had to go down to one-way car traffic, the city’s transportation staff told unhappy residents and councillors asking for a reversal to wait six months so a proper analysis could be done of the change.
Six months passed a long time ago, councillor Paul Toner said Monday, renewing his call from that December for two-way car traffic to be brought back to Garden Street from Bond Street and Huron Avenue.
“I would not even be bringing this up if, after a year, I didn’t hear about it. It’s two years now. I’m still hearing about it,” Toner told the city manager and staff. “This isn’t just that people didn’t get used to it.”
Around 65 residents took time during public comment to talk about Toner’s order, some calling for the one-way traffic to stay in place for bicyclist safety but more calling for a reversal, with even several identifying themselves as bicyclists asking to end the experiment. Ruth Allen of Paddy’s Lunch, a 90-year-old neighborhood bar, said she represented “many small-business owners who were not taken into consideration when they did this project.” She gave testimony that “our customer base has gone down. People are stuck in traffic. My deliveries are not on time, or nor can they get there.”
Toner’s order called for two-way car traffic to be returned as soon as possible but no later than April 1, but that ran into manager concerns about process – making sure all voices can be heard about a change, as residents and councillors frequently call for – and a literal cold reality: Until April, the temperatures will be “generally below 40 degrees, and it’s not possible” for permanent car-lane changes to be marked on Garden Street, said Owen O’Riordan, deputy city manager.
Ultimately, it passed with the council calling unanimously not for the work itself on that timeline, but for a report with analysis and “possible options for implementation.”
There were factors other than the weather to take into account. Toner and others urged the changes because of the effect Garden Street has had shunting car traffic to side streets, and because the shared Tobin and Darby Vassall school campus promises to add to car counts when it reopens after years of construction; but O’Riordan and City Manager Yi-An Huang pointed to how the work would ripple through the scheduled work on installation of bike lanes elsewhere in the city. Another factor: moving lost parking spaces from Garden onto side streets.
The Garden Street bike lanes – one on each side of the roadway, heading in opposite directions – are part of changes citywide resulting from a Cycling Safety Ordinance passed in 2019-2020 largely for completion in March 2026. Working to find new parking spaces that would otherwise be lost to bike lanes has already pushed that deadline to November 2026 after a proposal to go into 2027.
Adding back a lane
A suggestion for Garden Street in December 2022 was to add back two-way car traffic by taking the bike lanes on opposite sides of Garden Street and putting them side by side, using less space. Having the directions of bike traffic separated is “always better,” with more predictability and safety resulting from fewer crossings, transportation department chief Brooke McKenna said then. Now councillor Patty Nolan raised the possibility instead of squeezing out more space another way: bike lanes that were “narrower than ideal, but we have a lot of narrow bike lanes in the city where we just don’t have the room.”
Instead, more conversation Monday went toward making room for a returned car lane on Garden Street by taking away slightly more than half of the 32 parking spaces on the affected stretch, only around 80 percent of which tend to be used at a time, Huang said.
Nolan’s own research agreed it was doable. “It has never been the case that there aren’t at least 10-plus spots on those side streets within two blocks – not five blocks away or 10 blocks away,” Nolan said. “If the number of cars is 30, there’s been at least 40 open parking spots within two blocks” in daily checks she’s conducted over the past week, looking at midday and night.
“We do need to understand how we’re going to deal with deliveries, et cetera, but we deal with that in other parts of the city as well,” Nolan said.
Intending outreach
There were councillors prepared to vote Toner’s order through Monday, with some noting that this corrected a change that was made in the fall of 2022 without proper outreach to residents beyond Garden Street itself – despite the predictable effects of cars diverted to those nearby streets. “Not to shade our city staff, because they do an amazing job in trying to do the best they can,” councillor Ayesha Wilson said. “I personally was a direct abutter to this Garden Street installation and was not aware of it until the Friday before. And I was an elected official on the School Committee on maternity leave, walking my baby there every day.”
Neighbors were so angry afterward that even meetings on other topics turned into dialogues about Garden Street – and heated ones, with intense attacks on transportation staff who were carrying out a law passed by the council, Toner said. “I thought I was going to have to call the police,” he recalled of one meeting.
Those feelings of neighborhood anger haven’t faded entirely, Toner said, and now “I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but there was more community outreach on this particular issue by the citizens – residents of the area, about eight of them, who went out and leafleted their neighborhood and sent emails to folks. And I won’t get into it, but my aide counted 530 emails on this issue in the past three days.”
Huang acknowledged “a pretty significant community that feels very strongly that something needs to change,” but that didn’t mean it was wise to create new grievances by moving quickly and missing outreach opportunities again, he said.
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.
A bit more background information on this issue which didn’t make it into the article:
First, the fact that construction can’t happen in the winter isn’t a surprise to anyone who has been dealing with these issues for any length of time, so at minimum Toner, Nolan and Wilson would’ve known about it.
In other words, the Councilors submitted a request they _knew_ was impossible to achieve: finishing the work by April was never going to happen. Did they tell this to the people they were recruiting to speak?
Second, if the City proposed removing any number of parking spots without extensive public outreach the sponsors would have been very upset, yet they asked the City to do just that. It’s again not surprising that City staff insist that the Council follow its own repeated requests for public outreach.
In addition, since this request has gone before the City Council before, we actually have heard City staff’s analysis: “A Garden Street that is two-way for vehicles for the full length … would take longer to cycle through traffic signal phases [at Huron, Linnaean, and Concord intersections], causing additional delays and likely back-ups for all travelers at these intersections.” (https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2022/gardenst/postinstallationdata/033023gardenstreetsafetyimprovementprojcetlocaltrafficanalysis.pdf#page=50)
Perhaps a new solution can be found that doesn’t have these issues, but then again, perhaps not. So it’s quite possible that the two-way design change would simply create new problems.
Did the sponsors of the policy order share this information with people who support the change?
The fact that people per Toner are upset enough to attack city staff still does not mean these people’s preferred design change will work as they expect.
Finally, the original public process for the Garden St change is easy to look up (https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/projectsandprograms/gardenstsafetyimprovementproject) and the claim that no outreach was done is simply not true. In chronological order:
* 3,500 postcards sent to addresses around the area.
* 40 laminated signs on Garden St and side streets.
* Flyers for people on Garden St.
* First community meeting.
* Another 40 signs.
* Second community meeting.
* Another 40 signs.
* Flyers distributed along:
Garden Street
Concord Avenue
Chauncy Street
Walker Street
Walker Street Place
Garden Lane
Bond Street
Madison Street
Fernald Drive
Gray Gardens East
Gray Gardens West
Robinson Street
Raymond Street
Garden Terrace
Holly Avenue
Huron Avenue
Winslow Street
Tierney Street
Orrin Street
Sherman Street
Cutler Avenue
* Third community meeting.
* 4,700 postcards sent.
* 40 laminated signs.
* Fourth community meeting.
* In-person community open house.
Notably the community meetings shared multiple options, added a third option suggested by the community (the one way design!) and _talked about tradeoffs involved between designs_, something this policy order doesn’t bother to do.
So bike lanes stay. Traffic flows two ways. some parking gets limited? Seems win win except for parking but a lot of the houses there have driveways. Not the end of the world. I hope it passes back to two lanes, and cars speeds and bike lane blocking are enforced.
This move is short-sighted. Which is no surprise from Paul Toner, Cambridge’s champion of short-sighted and selfish policies.
1. Safety: Separated bike lanes reduce bicycle crashes by about 50% compared to paint-only lanes, significantly improving cyclist safety.
These are real people being injured and killed. Is driver convenience a higher priority than lives??
2. Increased cycling: Bike mode share within a half-mile radius increased by 300%, and bike volumes by over 500% in just four months after project completion.
This REDUCES traffic. When will some drivers finally realize that more people cycling means fewer cars on the road. This is not rocket science.
By contrast, policies that make things easier for drivers results in more people driving and, in the long-term, more traffic and more pollution.
3. Positive environmental impact: More cycling leads to reduced car use, decreasing emissions and improving air quality.
And let’s not forget that cars are dangerous
4. Traffic calming: Bike lanes can slow vehicle speeds, enhancing safety for all road users.
Cities with higher cycling rates tend to have lower overall road fatality rates.
In sum, reverting changes on Garden St could undermine these significant safety and environmental benefits.
Instead, focus on fine-tuning the existing infrastructure to address residents’ concerns while maintaining improved cycling facilities.
But that level of nuance and long-term vision seems lost on Paul Toner.
Some of you might know, has Nolan had a single pro-bike vote during the current council term?
I fundamentally don’t understand the reasoning behind this. The sponsors of the PO have all been waxing poetic about how we need more community input on changes to the streets, yet nobody knew about this proposed change until this weekend.
When council initially voted to delay the implementation of bike lanes on a few key routes, they cited city staff’s expertise, but now the city staffers are saying that returning 2-way traffic will likely not reduce congestion whatsoever and that has been all but ignored.
It’s good that this got watered down to requesting the city staff to review options, but it still seems like something that should not take priority over the critical safety projects that are mandated by law under the CSO.
Also, “32 parking spaces on the affected stretch, only around 80 percent of which tend to be used at a time” doesn’t seem like the spots are underutilized. If the spots were 100% utilized, people wouldn’t be able to park, and they’d circle the area looking for parking, which ironically adds congestion. 80% utilized means that there’s only something like a single spot open on each block of the project area.
And let’s be clear: There is NO evidence than bike lanes harm Paddy’s or other businesses. In fact, bike lanes have been shown to help local businesses.
Ruth Allen should probably not be promoting drunk driving by encouraging her customer base to drive to and from her bar.
@ResidentOfCambridgeMA:
I share your concern. Paddy’s Lunch wants people to drive to their bar? That’s promoting drunk driving—how civic-minded.
@Itamar Turner-Trauring:
Toner, Nolan, and Wilson are inconsistent. They demand public outreach for issues they oppose but ignore it when they want something. Toner falsely claims there was no public outreach; there was, but he didn’t like the results.
Toner calls for an analysis of changes to Garden Street while disregarding a city study showing his proposed changes would worsen conditions.
As for Patty Nolan, she initially supported bike lanes but reversed her stance after they improved safety in her neighborhood. She values their safety for her child, but when it comes to other neighborhoods, driver convenience seems to take priority.
For the question on some votes I’ve taken for bikes: there are many. Just this year, Memorial Drive open for cycling is one. And just a few weeks ago sponsored an important policy order for a Bike Plan update to start to expand the network of protected bike lanes, since there is a need for more north-south on the east side of the ctiy and some east-west on the west side. With unanimous support from the council, it seeks continued progress, with transparency and openness. check it out https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=4585&MediaPosition=&ID=26289&CssClass=
Bike lanes are not an inherent good. This is a tremendous development in the fight against the bike lane industry lobbyists who have descended upon Cambridge. It took me 30 minutes to go from Armando’s Pizza to Paddy’s the other day.
@bigbikelane Cars, not bikes or bike lanes, cause traffic. Bike lanes help reduce congestion by removing cars from the road.
Next time you see 10-12 cyclists at a traffic light, consider how much space those same cars would occupy.
It’s surprising that drivers often fail to see that they are part of the traffic problem.
With Cambridge’s growing population, we must provide alternatives to driving.
Otherwise, we face a future of constant traffic and gridlock, regardless of bike lanes.
@Patty Nolan, your recent actions contradict your claims of being a politician who values facts and science.
Facts:
1. People are being injured and killed on our streets.
2. Bike lanes can reduce accidents by 50%, enhancing safety for all road users.
Misconceptions:
There is no evidence that bike lanes harm businesses or increase traffic. In fact, extensive research indicates that bike lanes benefit local businesses. (That’s the science you like to refer to.)
In April 2024, you cast a crucial vote to delay the installation of bike lanes, citing “impacts on local business” despite the absence of supporting evidence. This includes Cambridge Street. Since 2021, there have been 65 reported crashes on Cambridge Street alone!
Now, you support modifications to Garden Street, which city analysis suggests will worsen conditions.
Your decisions seem driven by political pressures rather than the urgent need for improved urban planning.
Prioritizing these considerations over immediate safety undermines the council’s duty to protect public welfare. Addressing safety should take precedence over accommodating unwarranted business concerns. Lives are at stake!
By yielding to political influences and neglecting your responsibility, you risk future accidents that could have been prevented.
People will suffer as a result.
@bigbikelane please please please do not drive to the bar. Drunk driving is the worst. Signed, big bike lanes lobby CEO
@bigbikelane Cars are not inherently good. They cause pollution, traffic, contribute to climate change, and kill tens of thousands in the US annually as well as injury hundreds of thousands.
Alternatives to driving are beneficial and inherently good.
FWIW, One group I lead, the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, supports Mem Drive remaining open to pedestrians and bikes on Sat and Sun weekends. The other group, Cambridge Citizens Coalition has been neutral on Bike Lanes and has supported candidates on both sides of the issue. That said, what I wrote to Council for the Monday vote is that with 3 cycling fatalities this year (even after the bike lane ordinance passage) and another recent bike-car accident on Brattle and Fayerweather, it is time (over-time) for the city to bring in real professionals to help us address the very bad transit situation here. We need to find a way so that pedestrians, bicyclists, cars and other forms of mobility on the streets can all be safe and get to where we need to go.
@Patty Nolan: Your safe streets record is questionable.
You recently voted to delay bike lanes on dangerous Cambridge streets for political reasons, citing unsubstantiated business concerns. This delay risks unnecessary injuries or worse.
Remember, business owners on Mass Ave and elsewhere claimed bike lanes would “put them out of business” years ago, yet they remain open.
Politicians should prioritize the greater good. Why do a few business owners’ concerns outweigh public safety? Is it due to campaign donations?
Trading lives for parking spots for the few isn’t justifiable. Bike lanes enhance safety for all.
Please try to keep in mind that the lowest income earners often cannot afford cars. They rely on bikes and walking for transportation, putting them at risk.
Any thoughts about protecting the most vulnerable members of our community instead of catering to the unjustified fears of business owners and those able to afford cars?
The Green Street decision contradicts city officials’ advice, suggesting political motivations rather than public interest.
It’s disappointing when re-election prospects trump the greater good in political decision-making.
my direct answer to actions on the record in favor of bike lanes is above. it is important that we update our bike plan – and that will do a lot to help safe transit across the city. Note that it is known that the Garden Street change will remove some parking spots – making the point that parking spots, while important to consider, are not sacrosanct. But sure, let’s not look at the whole picture. let’s define me by one vote instead of the MANY votes I’ve taken FOR bike lanes.
City officials warn the change would worsen conditions.
However, Paul Toner, admitting he’s “not a traffic engineer,” cites public opinion.
This reflects our current political climate, where expert advice is often disregarded in favor of popular sentiment. Way to be a leader, Paul!
@bigbikelane I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe you that it took four times as long to drive as it would have to walk to Paddy’s.
@Patty Nolan with all due respect, your deciding vote to delay the implementation of the CSO has been the most consequential vote regarding bike safety in the current term of the council, as far as I can tell. Even though that was ultimately reversed, it still ended up pushing the timeline backwards by several months. This is why advocates don’t really trust you on bike issues anymore, regardless of other past votes.
As for Memorial Drive, state law already mandates that it’s open for people walking and on bikes, and this year we didn’t get anything beyond the state-mandated minimum.
@ level 99 bike lane appreciators:
Do you encourage my elderly parents to utilize bike lanes?
Maybe we should set up dui checkpoints for the bike lanes. You’re all clearly impaired if you think canvassing a city in bike lanes, which are essentially useless in the winter months, is a good idea.
30 minutes to drive a tenth of a mile is unacceptable anywhere in the city of Cambridge, and it was never this bad until the Garden St fiasco.
@cwec have you seen traffic at 5pm?
Don’t get me started about Aberdeen Ave.
What they’ve done to Mt. Auburn is an abomination.
Bike lanes should be separate and raised. Like Europe.
Not wantoned across the city at the expense of good people whose travel situation cannot reasonably be confined to two wheels.
@Patty Nolan, as @cwec pointed out, your actions feel like “one step forward, two steps back.” Your vote to delay bike lanes on some of the city’s most dangerous streets was illogical.
It was a highly consequential decision that undermined the city’s progress in improving safety and was based on unsubstantiated claims about harm to businesses, despite clear evidence that bike lanes save lives.
Your vote cannot be justified by “facts and science.” The data overwhelmingly supports the benefits of bike lanes and does not substantiate claims of negative impacts.
I hope your recent actions on bike lanes are not just political grandstanding. Because when it came to a critical vote on bike safety, you appeared to cave to politics. We have reasons to be suspicious.
Your recent vote on Garden Street also defies logic and seems driven solely by political considerations.
@bigbikelane People should drive less and opt to walk for nearby errands. Like Europe.
Not all bike lanes are good and not all bike lanes are bad, just as a round peg cannot fit into a square hole.
why are people arguing? the bike lanes are staying. this is just embarassing.
“City officials” told us garden going to one way would not affect other traffic.
then they had to change street after street who were getting swamped with cars, so… I’m sorry if I don’t exactly think they are the experts some folks are holding them up to be.
Cambridge’s increasing car use & traffic may be largely due to the unreliable MBTA service. Thankfully, nearly all slow zones have been fixed – and the remaining ones on the Green line are scheduled to be fixed by Dec. 22! The bike lanes are critical city infrastructure for safety, a livable climate, healthy air quality, equitable transit, and reducing traffic & parking woes in an evolving city.
Cycling and bike lanes are no substitute for a working and efficient public transit system. Now that both the T and cycling are becoming more practical, many people can drive less or even opt out of personally owned vehicles! Imagine the freedom of never shoveling out or looking for a parking space again! No inspections or repairs, no moving for street cleaning, no parking permit, no gas or charging, no car payments or insurance.
Owning a vehicle can be a hassle in the city, and there are many alternatives! As residents opt for fewer personally owned vehicles, and smaller micro-vehicles both parking and traffic woes will subside. Ride shares, Zipcar & Turo car sharing offer a variety of solutions for those who rarely need a car. Ideally, it would be great to have a shared solar/EV micro-vehicle on each block (for local errands) and an EV or hybrid for day trips so that those who rarely need a vehicle can buy a share, rather than owning a vehicle. This could speed the transition away from fossil fuel while limiting lifetime vehicle emissions from embodied carbon.
I would love to share a Sprout solar EV from Wink Motors. While my ebike is sufficient for most needs including groceries, easy access to a vehicle on rare occasions could eliminate yet another gas powered car from the street. Shared vehicles can remove 9-13 personal vehicles off the road according to one study.
I’m sure all you bike lane bootlickers are just mad about arriving everywhere soaking wet this week. Consider moving to Europe as a virtue signal.
Cars and their drivers have rights too.
My understanding was that the light on Garden/Huron intersection would only need to be longer if we changed to a bidirectional bike lane on one side of the road; rather than the current lanes on two sides of the road. However, all parking would likely be lost if bike lanes remain on both sides of the road. I believe this would mostly effect the apartment building. Hopefully outreach will be done in a way to facilitate practical alternative transit to people in this area. Perhaps some shuttle option, locating Zipcar parking closely, convenient storage for bikes, e-bikes, scooters, bus schedule/stops etc. See what climate friendly strategies work best for the neighborhood. It would be great to have some standard options for new housing that does not have dedicated parking.
In reality, the climate crisis is becoming dire. Ice on the poles is melting far more quickly than expected – this is verging on major tipping points (AMOC ocean current change with dire consequences, permafrost is changing from a carbon sink to a carbon emitter. We need to start reducing emissions in a major way!
The notion that by cutting emissions in Cambridge we can play a major role towards mitigating climate change is cute af.
India generates 72,368 million liters of raw sewage daily, 95% of which is dumped into the ocean untreated. If you really want to make a difference, take your efforts overseas.
Seriously, go.
Cambridge will be fine without you.
Dear moderator, how are bigbikelane comments on this article acceptable?
Most actions we need to take to mitigate climate change have a myriad of benefits for humans, our environment and the hosts of species we rely on. Most climate and environmental actions both benefit us now, with a 10-100 fold benefit in the future. But we should also be aware that not acting quickly will almost inevitably have dire consequences.
Yes, all nations will have successes and failures; just as individuals will always have some fault or inconsistency in behavior to criticize. Does an infraction overseas somehow excuse our poor choices and neglectful behavior in the US? Why not, instead, join billions of people, in cities, states, and nations who are working for a more promising future? It is the global movement that can, and is, making some progress. Cambridge can also help, or harm within its spheres of influence.
People who claim that adding bikes eliminates cars are wrong. Sit on Sherman Street any afternoon and look at the traffic jam getting to Route 2 and prove to me how those people are going to ride their bikes to the suburbs if only they had more bike lanes.
The only way we will successfully reduce the cars on the road is by providing more efficient, more available, more reliable and more affordable public transportation.
@aryasure That is wrong.
Bike lanes significantly reduce traffic congestion by promoting cycling over car use.
In cities like New York and Paris, the addition of bike lanes has led to increased cycling rates and shorter travel times for motor vehicles. For instance, in New York City, average travel times on certain routes decreased from 4.5 minutes to 3 minutes after bike lanes were implemented.
In Cambridge, the installation of separated bike lanes resulted in a remarkable 300% to 500% increase in cycling rates within just four months. A study indicated that bike mode share on residential streets near these lanes surged significantly, demonstrating the demand for safer cycling infrastructure.
The principle behind these changes is that every cyclist represents one less car on the road.
Research shows that reducing road space for cars encourages people to choose alternative modes of transport, thereby alleviating congestion.
For example, neighborhoods in London and Paris that implemented roadway restrictions saw notable reductions in car trips and increased bicycle usage.
@AmyW Yes, indeed. Motor vehicles significantly contribute to climate change.
If we don’t reduce car use by providing alternatives, future generations will bear the consequences.
We must prioritize long-term benefits for everyone over short-term convenience for some.
@Q99 People often claim that bike lanes are causing increased congestion, but this is a misconception.
The real issue in Cambridge is the rise in new buildings and jobs, which naturally leads to more cars on the road.
Increased congestion is frequently misattributed to bike lanes, but studies show that bike lanes do not contribute to this problem; in fact, they can help alleviate it.
A growing economy means more cars unless we provide alternatives. While not everyone will choose to bike, each cyclist represents one less car on the road.
To those opposed to bike lanes: Would you prefer all those cyclists to be driving instead?
Think about it.
@aryasure a bike would not replace a car trip from Cambridge to Leominster. A bike trip could replace the majority of car trips that are local: the vast majority of car trips is under 1 mile (followed by under 3 miles, followed by under 5 miles), see https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/covid-related/distribution-trips-distance-national-state-and So we can replace great majority of car traffic with regular and ebike. Such replacement works pretty well with better public transportation: less car traffic lets buses go faster plus you can bring your bike on a bus or train to combine them. So I won’t sit in car traffic on Sherman, I will bypass it on my ebike, thank you very much.
@bigbikelane is not only obnoxious but also childish and simplistic.
If everyone adopted the attitude of “we don’t need to act on climate change because India doesn’t,” nothing would ever get done. Historically, the U.S. has contributed far more to climate change than developing countries.
When @bigbikelane questions whether elderly people should use bike lanes, should we then say all elderly people should drive? Many cannot and should not
The AARP endorses bike lanes because they promote an active lifestyle and make streets safer for everyone, including those who don’t drive.
So, @bigbikelane, clear-headed adults rely on facts and base their arguments on them, rather than trolling with half-baked thoughts.
Yes! Reliable, convenient, efficient, safe, public transit is key! Cycling is only one piece of the puzzle, and it likely saved us from worse gridlock during years of T repairs. I don’t think we can understate the importance of our MBTA eliminating slow zones, (and the toll of the years of disrepair & disruptive repairs required to get to this point). Hopefully the T will quickly earn back public confidence. Hopefully we can now look to further public transit improvements.
Perhaps apartment associations could help coordinate some novel transit solutions for building residents. There are many ways to improve our transit, and make it more sustainable at the same time!
People have only just begun realizing the double benefit of bike lanes combined with e-bikes. It takes a bit longer to find weather work-arounds that allow vehicle owners to be comfortable eliminating a household car. The hugely popular bike lanes are one part of essential city infrastructure, the brave band that took on this monumental effort deserve much credit! I have heard of many people discovering the efficiency and general pleasure of cycling to access parts of the city they rarely dared to venture by car (fearing traffic & lack of parking) and others who love taking passengers on their e-bikes. I am amazed that after figuring out new strategies, I generally prefer grocery shopping by e-bike. A little practice has made it the more efficient method.
Bus lanes allow for more efficient transit, but since they are empty much of the time, perhaps they could be shared like the HOV lane by multi-passenger vehicles, and other strategies that help us transition quickly to non-polluting transit. A shared city fleet of micro-solar/EVs could both reduce embodied vehicle carbon footprints and help those who need occasional car transit eliminate a vehicle. Most cars sit unused the vast majority of the time! This not only represents colossal embodied carbon waste in our current personal vehicle ownership transit model; it also represents a significant drain of time, attention, monetary resources, and hassles in upkeep, parking, maintenance, shoveling etc.
Out of town traffic has its own unique set of issues! Some innovative thinkers have combined commuter rail or bus transit and the shared Bluebike system or local transit to solve the problem. Again, reliable public transit is key, and it requires more improvements! We need many strategies, and new innovations, to meet everyone’s needs. Please don’t discount the essential role cycling can play as a growing, practical, healthy, climate friendly transit option!
@aryasure if more people felt comfortable biking due to safer infrastructure, more people would bike from Arlington and Lexington. Also, all those drivers coming from the suburbs are no longer competing with people that live in Cambridge and have swapped some of their car trips for bike trips.
Frankly I’m more concerned about the safety of people in Cambridge than the convenience of people driving to Cambridge, anyways.
@bigbikelane: Cars do not have rights.
@bigbikelane the “if you don’t like it, then move” argument goes both ways. I could just as easily tell you to move somewhere where cars take priority above all else.
We focus on Cambridge because we live here, and we like living here, and we want to make things better for the people who live here. I don’t think your bitter comments are doing anything to accomplish that, though.
We should not be catering our streets to people who live in the suburbs. Also people do ride their bikes in from the suburbs all the time, they just need the infrastructure to do it. Have you never heard of the “Minute Man commuter bikeway”?
Reducing car usage requires creating viable alternatives, transit is one, biking is another and the actual advocates for both are generally the same people.
So half the city council thinks it is unacceptable to remove parking after extensive community processes in order to improve street safety but think it is completely acceptable to remove parking for a (misguided) idea that it is better for driver convenience?
How much more clear can they make it that they view the lives and voices of some people in this community as more important than others.
@Patty Nolan “let’s define me by one vote instead of the MANY votes I’ve taken FOR bike lanes.” You have actually voted against bike lanes several times. This resolution wasn’t one vote. You not only voted for it, you voted against several compromises that would have made it less bad and continued to do so until you knew a majority was opposed to you and then switched your vote. It is nakedly transparent what you are doing and no one is going to fall for it.
The update to the bike plan also means nothing while councilors, including you, are still undermining the existing plan.
“Do you encourage my elderly parents to utilize bike lanes?”
In places with good bike infrastructure elderly people bike more than anyone else: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=5525190387572645&id=981415628616833&set=a.981436588614737
“Maybe we should set up dui checkpoints for the bike lanes.”
The law against drinking and driving explicitly only applies to motor vehicles which bikes are not. You are also the only one here who mentioned driving to the bar.
“Bike lanes should be separate and raised. Like Europe.”
Yes they should thankfully that is happening more and more. That doesn’t happen without reallocating space though. The way Europe did and does that is taking away lanes and parking from cars, the very thing you oppose.
“I’m sure all you bike lane bootlickers are just mad about arriving everywhere soaking wet this week.”
I thought you just claimed no one uses them in the winter? So much for that then.
“The notion that by cutting emissions in Cambridge we can play a major role towards mitigating climate change is cute af.”
All emissions are cumulative.
Cambridge also has much higher per capita emissions than India. What we do here matters a lot. The places emitting the most have the biggest obligation to cut them.
Bottom line: Garden St is going back to a two way street.
Even if we all got EVs, where do you think that electricity comes from? Primarily burning fossil fuels. Have you ever done a deep dive and looked into where your plastic ends up when you send it off for ‘recycling’?
Climate change is a real issue, but it can be addressed without worsening the already dire traffic patterns in Cambridge.
I too wish I lived in a perfect utopia where riding a bicycle was a reasonable solution for daily transit. But I don’t, so I drive my car.
@Patty Nolan’s pro-bike claims ring hollow. As @Slaw points out, she has a track record of voting to delay long-planned projects and obstructing the rollout of bike lanes on dangerous roads—seemingly for political reasons. This suggests she’s trying to appease both sides.
It’s doubtful Paul Toner’s goal is to improve bike lanes. His likely aim is to eliminate them altogether, with delays serving as a tactic to achieve that.
Surely, @Patty Nolan understands this. Her votes with Toner and Wilson actively support their agenda. If she doesn’t, well…