Parking has been a battle in Cambridge for decades, and fought for all the more fiercely when bike lane installations began moving – and sometimes removing – metered spaces. A law passed Monday by the City Council could make drivers’ worries a thing of the past.
Businesses with parking lots of fewer than 20 spaces can begin renting spaces out immediately – as soon as Tuesday, in the understanding of Paul Toner, the city councillor who wrote the original policy order and shepherded it through to passage.
City planners looked at some 45 “flexible parking corridors” citywide and found an expected loss of 800 to 900 parking spaces to bike lanes, but a gain of as many as 3,400 off-street parking spaces that could be freed up by the proposed zoning.
The so-called Parking and Transportation Demand Management language introduced in the spring lets businesses reuse their private, off-street parking as public spaces for any purpose. It was back in October for the required process of hearings before the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee. Monday’s vote ordained the zoning, 9-0.
The language’s return in October wasn’t in time to avoid a delay in the city’s Cycling Safety Ordinance around installing bike lanes on Main Street, Cambridge Street and Broadway, which had an original timeline of May 1, 2026, but might not be complete until Nov. 30, 2026.
With the delay already in place, though, the flexible-parking law itself drew little opposition. It was welcomed by those envisioning a more harmonious path to getting bike lanes installed.
“Some of the bicycle advocates were saying things like, ‘Well, now they have an extra 4,000 parking spots.’ No, there’s 4,000 potential parking spots. Some people have no desire or intention of making their spaces available,” Toner said. “Community Development just identified places that could do it if they wanted to.”
Still, Toner knows of some businesses that have been ready all along: the site of future condos at 2400 Massachusetts Ave., North Cambridge, which has around 40 parking spots it could make available, and an unused gas station in the same part of town where the owners were “waiting for this because the insurance companies want to know, is this legal?” (Even that might not be overnight: “He has to repave his lot,” Toner said.) The East Cambridge Business Association is in discussion with businesses as well, he said.
“I don’t know how much it will yield ultimately, but there are conversations happening to provide some support and flexibility in quarters where bicycle lanes are having an impact,” Toner said.
While small lots are free to begin making their spaces available, those with 20 or more spaces must go to the city’s Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department for a permit, Toner said.
In that case, “it’s not like it would happen overnight, but it sounded like it would be a pretty efficient process,” Toner 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.
There is a growing consensus among urban experts that too much parking is killing cities.
It encourages more people to drive, especially for convenience, not necessity.
More parking makes traffic and parking worse due to Induced Demand.
But try to tell that to Paul Toner, Cambridge’s king of short-sighted, selfish policies.
Free Parking Is Killing Cities
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-31/why-free-parking-is-bad-according-to-one-ucla-professor
US Cities Are Falling Out of Love With the Parking Lot
https://www.wired.com/story/us-cities-are-falling-out-of-love-with-the-parking-lot/
How Parking Destroys Cities
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/parking-drives-housing-prices/618910/
Why free parking is bad for everyone
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
AvgJoe: Note that the article says businesses may rent their spaces. That parking is not free. The move makes sense at a time when residents are losing on-street parking and new buildings are no longer required to include parking.
In my neighborhood, for example, the large parking lot of a substantial residential apartment complex has many vacant spots. Until now, as far as I know, the owners of the complex have been unable to rent out those spots to neighborhood residents due to city prohibition.
As proponents of the transportation changes in Cambridge like to say, cities evolve. This is a sensible step in that evolution.
I know there are over 40 k stickers given out to residents each year and we are one of the densest cities in the country. That means that one out of 3 people who live here has to park their car somewhere. That includes children. So where will they park? Paul Toner is not short sighted. Just practical.
Paul Toner is an exemplary representative who actually listens to and cares about the concerns of all Cambridge residents, not just a hypervocal, narrow constituency group. Somerville could use a Paul Toner or two.
Paul Toner does not represent all Cambridge residents; he listens primarily to a vocal minority. Most residents want safer streets and action on housing costs—issues Toner opposes.
As posted earlier, urban planning experts widely agree that cities must move away from car-centric policies. Maintaining the status quo is not only impractical but short-sighted. It leads to more traffic, pollution, preventable injuries, and deaths. Motor vehicles remain a significant contributor to climate change, which will impact everyone.
Approximately half of Cambridge residents either don’t own cars or use them minimally. Elections and surveys consistently show strong support for better bike lanes and street safety measures.
@AllisS, during a public comment session on bike lanes, 252 people supported building safer bike lanes on schedule, while only 10 favored a delay. Over 1,000 emails were sent to the City Council opposing the delay, Recently, the the Council to reverse its decision after cyclist deaths sparked public outrage.
Your claim that Toner listens to all residents is inaccurate. That is demonstrably false. In reality, he aligns with a vocal minority.
Traffic congestion and parking issues will worsen due to induced demand. This urban planning concept shows that improving driving conditions or increasing parking availability encourages more driving, ultimately exacerbating the problems.
The claim that Councilor Toner listens to everyone is not true. A significant portion of Cambridge residents don’t use cars, and two-thirds of trips in Cambridge are non-car based. Does he listen to these people?
I was at the council meeting when they voted to delay bike lanes. The overwhelming majority (> 90%) of those testifying at the council meeting opposed the delay.
The claim that he listens to everyone is pure fiction. He doesn’t take into account the majority of people in Cambridge.
In my experience, Toner represents all of Cambridge residents interests. You just do not include those of us who need a car and a parking spot occassionally in your definition of “residents”. Think bigger, more inclusively.
Lmao thinking only of those with cars is not thinking of the interests of “all residents” the amount of projection here is laughable.
Cars are also catered to more than anyone else already, while the infrastructure network for people outside of them needs an enormous amount of work to be barely functional. “Think bigger, more inclusively”
@Slaw “Cars” are not “catered to”; rather, people—residents— some of whom are likely your neighbors—with pressing life activities, who are reliant on vehicles to execute them, are accommodated, as they should be. Your relentless vitriol toward those who don’t happen to share your preference for mode of transit is tiresome and kind of juvenile.
That is incredibly ironic coming from you given the things you have said about bikes and the people who ride them. Cars absolutely have been catered to, denying that is ridiculous. This country is extremely car centric and spent decades almost exclusively building infrastructure for cars while ripping out public transit, existing bike and walking routes etc. So much has been written about this and the problems it creates.
People who don’t have cars by choice or necessity (cars are extremely expensive and many disabilities prevent people from driving) also have pressing life activities and largely are not accommodated, something you wish would continue. I’m fine with cars being somewhat accommodated, there is no risk of that stopping either, what is not fine is for cars (the most space inefficient, polluting, and dangerous mode of travel) to be prioritized above every other mode of travel, which has been the reality for decades.
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”
I don’t know what you think I have said about “the people who ride them,” i.e., bikes – but nice try at casting on unfounded aspersion. The “equality feels like oppression” mantra is obnoxious in the way that you and others revel in attributing it to anyone who isn’t on board with your POV. Sounds like something warmed over from the 60s and the wannabe revolutionaries.
@Slaw Also, more people with disabilities benefit from the option of driving, either themselves or by someone else, than not.
It’s true and emblematic of your behavior, which is really why it bothers you.
Here are some examples:
You responding to an article about cyclists dying by shifting the conversation to convenient parking and accusing those who found that extremely distasteful of “lack[ing] civility (and decency)” https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/06/15/road-improvements-are-still-hastened-by-deaths-but-slowed-by-resentments/
Here you respond to another article about cyclists being killed by shifting the conversation to parking and then say “The perpetual rallying cry that anyone who opposes loss of vital parking is opposed to ‘saving lives’ is tiresome and demagogic. Cyclists aren’t the only group of people whose ‘lives’ should be considered when it comes to policy-making.” There’s a pattern here clearly you would prefer we don’t talk about cyclists lives at all and instead only ever talk about your access to parking. https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/06/25/deaths-of-two-bikers-spur-look-at-intersections-and-aspirational-call-for-side-guards-on-trucks/
Here you ponder about cyclist error being responsible for a cyclist being killed by a driver on a sidewalk/multiuse path: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/09/24/rider-on-e-bike-dies-after-being-hit-by-an-suv-along-memorial-drive-amid-rush-hour-traffic/ and again launch into insults against the people who called out that as extremely gross victim blaming.
Here, in response to another cyclist being killed you frame her (and bike infrastructure) as responsible for her own death before then going out of your way to frame cyclists as dangerous with an unrelated example in which nothing actually happened https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/06/07/bicyclist-dies-after-being-hit-by-truck-in-cambridge/comment-page-1/#comments
Here you describe people who are pro-bike and refute lies about someone who actively and deliberately endangered them as subscribing to a “narrow, pompous ideology” https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/08/31/with-news-of-city-councillor-joan-picketts-death-remembrances-flow-for-a-friend-and-civic-leader/comment-page-1/
Those are just the few examples I can be bothered to find right now. You consistently respond with extreme vitriol over people who recognize that lives are more important than parking and consistently attempt to reframe every discussion after a cyclist dies into one about parking. You demonstrably do not care about the lives of cyclists and have an extreme disdain for those who do.
To the extent that I can extract, from your laziness in citing complete, lengthy threads comprising multiple comments rather than quoting from anything I actually said, it is clear that you have spun my comments in such a way that they sound malevolent rather than as questioning your ideologically driven interpretations of various events. Anyone familiar with your remarks on this site, and your previous contributions on another site, can, if so inclined, weigh your character and your civility in tone against mine and come to their own conclusions.
I directly quoted several things you said. Your supposed “civility” in the face of lives you see as less important than parking speaks for itself.
Your dismissal of any accountability for these detestable statements because I didn’t cite them well enough for your liking is lazy to be honest.
What do you even mean by “on another site” do you want to clarify that?
@Slaw You are very skillful at sliming people, I’ll give you that. Even including a widely respected Cambridge city councilperson, immediately following her tragic death last year. The revulsion to your remarks (and those of a couple of your fellow trolls) wasn’t mine alone – quoting from one of them: “Those cutting remarks and cruel comments are completely inappropriate and come from the same folks who harassed, trolled and threatened an elected city councillor who was working to find compromises and fairness for all residents, including elders – not just for these unencumbered idealists.”
Contrary to what I posted earlier, you managed to extract one of my actual comments, but not before twisting it totally out of context. Because that is what you do. Your mission isn’t, as you thump your chest and claim, over and
over again, “cyclist safety” or “saving lives”— it’s casting others who hold views not shared by you in the worst possible light. You should find another way to get your kicks.
You are upset that I didn’t quote you even though I did several times but to prove how bad I am you don’t quote a single thing I have ever said you quote what someone else who was also dedicated to maintaining a convenient fiction about someone who spent her life actively making our city worse said about me while making vague illusions to my supposed lack of character and civility without providing a single example.
It’s rich the way you demand that no one speak the truth about powerful people who harmed them after that powerful person dies but you have absolutely no shame about speaking ill of dead cyclists. You are dedicated to casting cyclists in the worst possible light, even after they are killed. You have no shame and are a massive hypocrite.
You have demonstrated routinely that you fare far more about your ability to find parking easily than you do about the lives of people you see as less than. I have demonstrated that with quotes and sources. You can continue to cast vague aspersions against me but they do not pass muster. It is clear that you are primarily upset with me for calling out your violently misguided priorities and shameful behavior in the wake of people dying. Grow up.
Have you ever considered that “cyclist safety” and “saving lives” isn’t a rhetorical ploy but a genuine concern for my own life and the lives of people in this community that I love and care about? You care so little about our lives that you genuinely can’t even imagine someone who actually does. You cast yourself in a the worst possible light by assuming those with a serious concern for the lives of others are approaching arguments in the same bad faith way you do.