Linear Park is a park. Or is it a pricey throughway to shave 30 seconds off your ride? It’s being decided for you.
The Community Development Department hosted a meeting Nov. 21 for public comment on its proposed redesign of Linear Park. Sensible opposing arguments were piling up in the Department of Public Works meeting room about this lovely, fragile quarter-mile stretch of park in North Cambridge that includes a little elbow of asphalt path about 10 feet wide in an allée of tall trees where regulars go for a bit of respite from summer heat and exhaust on North Massachusetts Avenue.
Between there and Harvey Street, you walk behind houses protected by the pleasant canopy overhead and spot someone you know. She’s accompanied by her mother in a wheelchair and a bright-eyed spaniel wagging its tail in circles. Bikes go by at a leisurely pace, making an easy scene of imperceptible synchronizing of strollers and rollers; people have the instinct to share on this green way that matters so much to its users.
CDD unaccountably frames this redesign as primarily a transportation project, not as a park restoration project. But Linear Park is indeed a park. In fact, a City Council policy order last October described the redesign as exactly that – a park restoration project – and the council passed it unanimously. The original 1984 easement from the MBTA to Cambridge stated its explicit purpose as providing a “walkway for pedestrians and bicyclists.” Not a transportation corridor.
Here’s a sliver of what I heard that rainy evening.
The path will be widened to a road – 18 feet from 10.5 if we include 4 feet of stone dust shoulders – not the slight widening that is purported. I understand that transportation planners relied on a survey that mislocated trees and got the existing width wrong. They now acknowledge the survey has errors.
The proposed changes that include new side paths, boulders and logs within the treelined stretch would encroach on and put more than 100 trees at risk. This would mean severely damaging mature tree roots and losing trees we cannot afford to, not only through widening but excavating for utilities and what are characterized as improvements. From an article with the International Society of Arboriculture: “Root damage may not directly kill a tree … the tree begins to divert resources from defense to growth. This leaves it vulnerable to secondary stresses such as disease and insects. It is this secondary attack that usually kills – sometimes months or even years later.”
We cannot unsee climate dislocation anymore right here right now. We are in drought again, followed by sharp deluges that gather in flood pools instead of soaking into the ground to recharge the water system. Trees are already stressed and vulnerable to infestation. We need to preserve every mature tree we can to buffer growing climate effects and offer cool, breathing and shady corridors along with the leafy beauty that eases our spirits.
But for rapid through bikers this may not be the point, while getting to the job on time or rigorous exercise is. An asphalt path turned road invites more speed, undoing that synchronizing of wheels with slower movers on foot, children and dogs on leashes. A cyclist estimated the proposal would save a whopping 30 seconds. But after this segment, bikes come to a full stop to cross Massachusetts and Cameron avenues, and shortly afterward they’re on a busy Davis Square plaza navigating pedestrians wandering and weaving in all directions. They then get spilled onto streets in the heart of Davis Square, with nowhere a sign indicating how to pick up the path on the other side.
Is 30 seconds worth the $7.2 million price tag?
Traffic-calming techniques used by the traffic department involve narrowing, not widening, ways, creating curves and working with cyclists and electric operators on safe etiquette. A CDD staffer shrugged helplessly to this point, conveying clearly there’s no way we’re going to enforce speed. But bicycle, scooter or even Vespa traffic in a hurry can go on the adjacent Harvey and Dudley streets for speed. These alternate existing routes are actually designated by the department as “bicycle priority streets” on the city’s website. Separating fast through traffic and pedestrians would bring a sigh of relief on all sides. In the current plan walkers are themselves the main traffic-calming measure. Makes you wonder.
We heard more eloquent, weary comment from neighbors and regulars who’ve been laying out the details of the plan’s overreach again and again. Two years of trying to point out realities in the face of indifference is evidently exhausting.
Public consensus on Linear Park redesign converges on less intervention is more: Protect and preserve the trees, minimize impervious surfaces that bring flooding and heat. Address long-deferred maintenance by air spading to de-compact soil. Repair the irrigation system, improve drainage and plant trees and shrubs. Along with it, promote safety with the help of genuine traffic-calming tools as well as supplemental routes. And lastly, adhere to the well-considered Urban Forest Master Plan that Cambridge has already adopted.
It was an impressive collection of public testimony that made no difference. The quality of argument didn’t figure. It came down to the city’s ostensible view that “we have expertise, so this is how it will be. But feel free to bring your concerns.“
So I hear you meant “I hear the words, but no fundamental change will be made.”
Why the intransigence? Is this a matter of fingers tightening their grip on an original plan? A city determined to support multimodal transport at high speed – in a fragile section of woods? A love of built design over nature? A desire to spend unnecessary sums of money? A favoring of bike commuters over strolling, or even slow rolling, among trees?
I came away with a sense of the planners’ reluctance – or is it plain opposition – to enforce a slower ethos, as if that’s just archaic. An unexpected image arose: of wheels and more wheels spinning in live competition for all of half a minute, while hapless seniors, children and animals are strewn along the park’s asphalt borders like roadkill.
Nonie Valentine, Washington Avenue, Cambridge
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.
Widening the path will reduce conflicts with pedestrians. Cambridge Day really needs to realize it doesn’t need to publish every NIMBY screed against implementing global best practices.
Linear parks are transportation corridors, there is no contradiction there. Widening it will be a major improvement for everyone.
The city when making decisions has to balance competing priorities. I agree that trees are important. The impact to trees here seems not dramatic to me. The city web site says:
“We are not removing any healthy mature trees. We are removing 5 deteriorated Cherry trees which will be replaced with Cherry trees.”
https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/communitydevelopment/linearparkredesign
I’m no tree expert but from reading CDD’s web site it does seem like they are taking the health of the existing healthy trees there seriously.
I love biking on the bike path, it is both a lovely park and an important piece of transportation infrastructure. In general it’s really nice to have room to safely pass pedestrians on bike paths. The city explains some of their reasoning here:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Projects/LinearPark/pathwidthscriteria_forcpp_20241.pdf
As part of being an open forum, I’m glad Cambridge Day publishes (almost every?) issue-based “screed”, whether or not I agree with it.
But it does bother me that CD continues to allow ad hominem attacks from trolls who hide behind pseudonyms. CD should require posters to put their full names to their words.
I live a few blocks away and bike, walk and run through Linear Park all the time and my sense is it’s fine at its current width. It’s important to note – as the writer does – that there are multiple stop and slow zones in the path ahead.
Not noted in the OpEd is that after leaving the Davis Sqr. area, the new GLX path is about 10-12′ wide. And also, to get there from the Minuteman requires making six or seven 90° turns and then negotiating the busy Russell T plaza – a plaza about to have thousands of new pedestrians walking to and from the spec labs.
What’s the point of taking the nicest park area and making it wider than the rest of the corridor? It’s also counter to the MBTA’s 1984 easement.
When I first saw the City’s plan, I was impressed, but then I learned from two landscape architects (with 90 years of experience between them) that it would likely kill a very large number of mature trees and listened to reason. Expanding the path from ~10.5′ to 18′ makes little sense here and seriously undercuts the City’s stated climate, green-space and canopy goals.
The path is fine the way it is, please restore it and save some of that $7mm to create *new* public green-spaces and bikeways to keep the City livable and cooler rather than harming the ones we already have.
“Expanding the path from ~10.5′ to 18′ makes little sense here and seriously undercuts the City’s stated climate, green-space and canopy goals.
The path is fine the way it is, please restore it and save some of that $7mm to create *new* public green-spaces and bikeways to keep the City livable and cooler rather than harming the ones we already have.”
This sums it up nicely. Thank you, Eric.
Like Peter, I’m grateful to the Day for publishing varying opinions on many issues. The cyclist lobby gets plenty of air time in the Day; now let’s hear from people who see the need for trees. Some people who understand that need are not NIMBYs. We write on behalf of the 100s of other residents who have no idea what’s coming for Linear Park. And we sign our names.
I was at the same November meeting as Nonie, the letter writer. I was aghast that the CDD had not listened to two years of input from knowledgeable neighbors–and evidence that the survey was wrong and many trees will die.
Is anyone else aghast that the city is spending $7 million to pave a 1/4-mile stretch of bike path? Especially since Harvey and Dudley Streets are already designated as bicycle priority streets? Harvey St is essentially the same route as Linear Path–and visible from it, about 4 houses away. Go look!
I ride a bike too.. But I see no need to fuss with Linear Park besides some renovations. Imagine how many trees the city could plant with that $7 million?
Helen Snively
It would be a lot easier to take this as a genuine concern for trees and not simply a screed against improvements to non-automotive transportation infrastructure if the people doing it weren’t simply lying about the number of trees being removed and spending most of the piece railing against bikes.
Slaw, who’s unwilling to let us know his/her/their name but perfectly happy to sling insults left and right against people who do give their names, assumes that city staff are telling the truth about the trees, even though they insisted on using surveys that were materially wrong, despite being told over and over, for two years (!), that the surveys were wrong. As far as I could tell, city staff simply refused to field-check the surveys. One of the volunteer landscape architects, on the other hand, spent hours upon hours painstakingly measuring and double-checking the surveys. Volunteers laid out the proposed changes to one section of the path on the ground (see the second picture) so we could all see that city staff were not telling us the truth. The other volunteer landscape architect was one of the designers of this multi-award-winning park, and she shared her reasons for designing it the way she did and other information about trees and their health.
I know whom I’d believe, and it’s not the people who were finally forced to admit, at least in part, that they’d been using materially wrong surveys. By the way, to my knowledge, they never made the surveyors fix their work. I wonder if they paid the full price anyway.
As to path width, why are bikes different from cars? Why is it safer if cars undergo road diets while bikes should get wider paths to improve safety? All of us are tempted to go faster when there’s more room. The path has been allowed to deteriorate for decades, so restoring it will provide more room that people can use. There’s no need to add another seven feet or so to encourage people to go faster and endanger everyone who’s there to enjoy the park, including a goodly number of the people on wheels. And make no mistake, this is a park, not a transportation corridor; the transportation corridor is underneath, and it’s running better these days, for which I am grateful. This is no more a transportation corridor than is Lechmere Canal Park near me, even though plenty of people find both of them a convenient and pleasant way to get where they’re going. To quote Simon and Garfunkel, “Slow down, you move too fast.” Linear Park is a wonderful oasis. Let’s keep the magic that draws so many people day after day and helps fight climate change to boot.
Thanks to long time Cambridge advocate Nonie for explaining the extremely flawed and destructive renovation of Linear Park.
This is a sad example of repurposing a public greenway into essentially a transit corridor, fueled by the city’s ability to ignore public input because of too generous municipal coffers.
Ignore the anonymous naysayers Nonie, you are a cherished community defender.
Getting rid of trees or letting them die to add more asphalt is foolish and shortsighted.
What makes linear so nice to bike or walk are the trees! As it stands there is plenty of room for cyclists and pedestrians alike!
Please post where we can petition against this 7m boondoggle.
I don’t believe you lot are telling the truth. You lie repeatedly and never take any accountability for it when your lies are debunked. You just go on to the next lie against the next project to make our infrastructure better for people outside of cars.
People already linked info here addressing your questions but rather than reading that or literally anything about best practices for path design (the path as is is absolutely too narrow resulting in lots of complaints and unnecessary conflicts), instead you just throw out some kettle logic.
Greenways are transportation corridors! Walking and biking are modes of transportation that are just as valid as cars and given the climate crisis actually need to be given greater preference. You show how profoundly unserious you all are by continuing to chirp on that as if a core function of a linear park is not as a transportation route for nonautomotive travel. You fundamentally do not know what you are talking about and it shows in so many ways, yet you demand deference to your lack of understanding and outright lies? Make it make sense.
The linear park is part of a transportation corridor that stretches from Bedford to downtown Boston, it also connects to greenways to Watertown and Belmont, which will eventually extend all the way to Northampton. This not only is a transportation corridor, it is one of the most important transportation corridors in the state if not the country for active transportation. The more adamantly you deny this the more you demonstrate yourself to have no interest in telling the truth.
Heather, I’m unsure if you were being serious when you asked “As to path width, why are bikes different from cars?” but I’m happy to address it. The changes to Alewife Linear Park are consistent with thirty years of effort by the City of Cambridge focused on reducing car usage in favor of active modes of transportation like walking and cycling. See 1992’s Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance, 1998’s Parking & Transportation Demand Ordinance, 2002’s Climate Protection Plan, 2016’s adoption of Complete Streets, 2017’s School Wellness Policy, 2018’s Vision Zero Initiative, and 2019’s Cycling Safety Ordinance.
Why has there been such a long history of encouraging active transportation? To put it short, it’s because cars make city life worse. Think about the air and noise pollution, social isolation, and the severe crashes that put everyone outside the car at risk. Active modes of transport are cheaper, healthier, quieter, help us address climate change, help us to meet our neighbors, and free up space in our small city for people. I for one want to live in a greener and safer city.
We do need more impervious surfaces, but it matters very much where we put them. A wider path will make the linear park more accessible without harming the trees.
On the other hand, I wish we would consider following Paris’s lead and replacing some parking spots with trees instead: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-18/paris-climate-plan-targets-emissions-by-replacing-parking-with-trees
I’m so glad Ms. Hoffman has referred to the landscape architects who volunteered their (considerable) time measuring Linear path and considering re-design implications. They were impressive, dogged really, in their attempts to be precise. It helped me to understand what’s at stake there.
The implication that my remarks are anti-cyclist is, well, silly. We need bikes. I bike. Who is not a biker here or has not been one? We don’t have to reduce cyclists and others into some cliche of opposition.
Have you ever lived near a park with mature trees and a path roughly the width of the Linear original? It’s a particular pleasure. At “my” park, called Letna, the trees were bigger. Cycling was relaxed. Walking and running were at varying paces. The large trees were such an attractive context that they seemed to induce mutual consideration among the movers. I never saw any conflicts. The underlying idea was to enjoy it together, however you were there: staggering, rolling, strolling, running, or skipping. You can’t beat that.
That’s part of the beauty of a park, elevating mutual sensitivity while in motion in a way you barely notice.
It’s worth protecting and so are the trees that support it. We’ve got to be very, very cautious about any possibility of putting trees in danger, especially ones that have put in some years.
Apply this logic to cars instead of bicycles one single time and I will take your argument seriously.
As it stands you are an opponent to improvements to nonautomotive transportation and as such are actively encouraging people to chose the most polluting form of local transportation.
Aesthetics cannot come before functionality of basic infrastructure. Drivers would never accept it and you clearly would never demand they do, but when it comes to people outside cars, then it’s ok. That’s not an environmental concern it’s a clearly bad faith argument.
It’s ironic that someone would oppose eco-friendly transportation infrastructure with misleading claims about tree removal.
This stance seems hypocritical, given the environmental benefits of non-polluting transport options.
It’s ironic to focus on cyclists’ danger to pedestrians on paths. Cars pose a far greater threat. To enhance safety, prioritize traffic-calming measures for vehicles and offer alternatives to driving.
Better cycling infrastructure reduces car usage, ultimately making streets safer.
Therefore, opposing cycling improvements due to pedestrian safety concerns is counterproductive and illogical.
scout, I’m unsure if you were being serious when you completely mischaracterized what I said about path width. The point is co-existence, because the use of Linear Park is governed by the easement from the MBTA to the City of Cambridge. That easement says that the City asked for a “pedestrian walkway”, and the MBTA gave a “walkway for pedestrians and bicycles”. That means everyone’s speed should be consistent with and respectful of walking speed. Bicyclists who are being honest have admitted that widening the path would encourage them to do exactly what car drivers do on wider roads–speed up. That’s not what this park is for. If the City fixes the broken and deteriorated parts of the path, which it was supposed to have been doing all along, there will be more usable room, without endangering the trees that make Linear Park a delight for all users, with and without wheels. That’s what I want, and I bet it’s what the vast majority of Linear Park’s fans want, too.
The path widening aims to create more space, enhancing separation between pedestrians and cyclists. It’s logical that this would improve safety.
The claim that it reduces safety seems contrived, likely stemming from opposition to park changes rather than genuine safety concerns.
This letter, like others, misrepresents the city’s actions as unresponsive when it simply doesn’t align with the author’s personal preferences.
Just a note here. I have to chuckle being portrayed as pro-car. I stopped owning a car in 1989. I am pro-slow in Linear Park. And very partial to the eco-system services of mature trees which in Cambridge we are allowing to be taken down far too frequently. Appallingly frequently. At the public meeting, I had no ax to grind but did not find the re-designers’ reassurances on tree safety at all convincing. Look at the photos then go there with a tape measure and an arborist and think it through for yourself.
MrNice, it must indeed be nice to know for sure what everyone else is thinking. Too bad you got it totally wrong on me.
What the city is planning doesn’t help bikes either. People should look at the actual plan. It adds conflict points. These are where slowdowns and accidents occur. The plan has a pedestrian pathway that crosses the main path in multiple places. It also has benches right up against the main path. It adds in play structures very close to the main path. These all will create issues for bikes. The whole area we are focusing on is less than a half mile. There isn’t any bike time savings to be had. No one is proposing stopping bikes from using it. I support bikes. Just this plan is insane and hurts bicyclists, pedestrians, and the environment.
It must be nice to believe there are no unintended consequences of your advocacy, to be so sure everyone ultimately agrees with you, to be so sure of your righteousness that you know there is nothing you are over looking and no way that opposing improvements to infrastructure for people outside of cars might actually backfire against your supposed environmentalism.
Why aren’t you pro slow on the streets? Adding traffic calming, bump outs, chicanes etc or simply narrowing streets around Cambridge would provide space to offset the (already dying) trees lost here a thousand times over. Again apply this logic to cars instead of bikes a single time and I will take your arguments seriously. You resolutely refuse to do that though, instead demanding that if people on bikes want a functional transportation route they simply share space with cars with no improvements for their safety.
No one cares what is in your heart they care about what you do and what you are doing is at odds with your claims of environmentalism.
Another reason not to apply the traffic calming logic you apply to cars and bikes is that cars and bikes are vastly different. Besides one polluting and the other not cars are much larger, heavier, and capable of going much faster. Give cars more space and they will go tens of miles per hour faster, which makes a huge difference for safety: https://reconnectrochester.org/southeast/2016/02/01/why-speed-matters/ at 20 mph 90% of pedestrians hit survive. At 30 it’s 50% at 40 it’s 10%.
If you give bikes more space someone is only really going to be able to at most go a couple miles per hour faster, and they would have to be really pushing. People generally bike the speed they feel comfortable riding and aren’t going to accelerate all that much because they have a bit more space, but they will be able to give pedestrians a wider berth.
The path as it currently configured has chokepoints at bends that do not facilitate safe passing and is generally too narrow to allow both people to walk side by side and bikes to pass. Widening it will reduce these conflicts considerably.
Seeing as there is no record of bikes killing pedestrians in decades in MA but drivers kill pedestrians and cyclists every week it makes no sense to treat these as equivalent problems needing similar approaches. But even if you are concerned particularly with bike and ped conflicts, this project should improve that.
The author’s concern about transforming the park into a “thoroughfare” by widening paths is nonsense.
The traffic-calming argument for bikes is flawed. Unlike cars, bicycles don’t pose significant safety risks.
If pedestrian safety is the real issue, focus should be on streets where actual accidents occur.
This appears to be a case of opposition seeking justification, rather than genuine concern.
Bicycles are environmentally friendly and reduce car dependency, contributing positively to both safety and ecology.
The author’s reasons for opposing park improvements lack sound basis.
The author’s portrayal of the Community Development Department’s (CDD) proposal as solely a “transportation project” oversimplifies the issue and is not accurate.
The 1984 easement’s purpose of providing a “walkway for pedestrians and bicyclists” actually supports improving the path for both groups. The redesign will enhance safety and accessibility while aligning with the original intent.
Urban spaces must evolve to meet changing needs. The redesign will enhance the park’s role as both a green space and functional infrastructure. It will also provide an important link to a bicycle transportation network that will improve street safety and reduce pollution.
Thank you Nonie. If not for your piece I would not have known about this. The City of Cambridge has a long history of pushing projects through without paying attention to the resident feedback they receive. The best what to do that is not to send a notice to abutters and then pay for an expensive survey with a pre-determined outcome. In many cases the people involved never even visit the sight in person only to encounter problems that could have easily have been identified.
I walk this path often with a dog and cycle through as well. I don’t want cyclists (often non residents) going any faster than they do now. This is another example of spending $$$ for an outcome that will not produce the desired result. For those that don’t know, the real safety risk here is to pedestrians, kids, and animal as cyclists speed through or swerve around last minute.
Widening means more pavement and less green space that ALL can enjoy. Already, cyclists are required to stop feet ahead at the eternal light at Cedar/Mass Ave. Thus, this is a total waste of money. Better to put $$ into something else, like the abandoned area on Whitmore Street was supposed to become a community garden.
So the people who agree with the author immediately recognize this as an anti-bike piece, and launch into the same ill informed talking points, but saying this piece was anti-bike was just totally off base right?
The “real safety risk” is cars and as long as you are fixated on bikes while ignoring that you are completely lost.
Again this will reduce conflicts between bikes and pedestrians, and despite your fact free assertions to the contrary there is a mountain of evidence and case studies to reference proving that.
Fear mongering against infrastructure improvements for people outside of cars is all this really amounts to. No one ever seems to complain that most drivers in Cambridge are “often non residents” driving is treated as natural and an assumed right, while existing outside of a car is treated as a privilege and you should be grateful for what you get. The hypocrisy is glaring and makes it impossible to take this seriously.
Thank you, Nonie, for sharing your perspective. I’m a North Cambridge resident and frequent the Linear Park both on a bike, accompanying small children on bikes, and as a pedestrian, also often with small children. We all love and appreciate the gorgeous tree canopy especially during the hot summer months. We also like to pop off the path and make fairy villages with acorns, leaves, rocks and other found natural items along the way. If you have the time, I encourage you to go slow, or stop and check out our creations :).
While the City says that only 5 deteriorated cherry trees will be replaced by 5 new cherry trees, I agree with Nonie and many experts that the mature tree roots will be significantly damaged by having 8 more feet of concrete poured on top of them all along the path and all the disturbance that will come from the significant and unneeded construction project.
Also aligned with what Nonie said, Linear Park to us is just that, a park and we would very much like to keep it as is to continue enjoying it. Widening the path would simply take away more of the park for us and other people and animals alike.The goal of the project as stated on the Linear Park Redesign webpage is “to create a cohesive open space corridor that provides increased access for the community and improved opportunities for passive recreation and leisure, play, enjoyment of the landscape, and a reliable transportation corridor for commuters and recreational park users.”
The improved opportunities for passive recreation and leisure, play, and enjoyment of the landscape should not be forgotten here or de-prioritized with deferential preference for commuters, specifically bikers so they can increase their speed for a few minutes at most/have more space to swerve around pedestrians. I also really like how in this area, there are periodic surface changes, like the bricks. This reminds all of us to slow down, we are in a park!
Why not leave Linear Park as is, and take that $7.2 million to create some much needed tree canopy along Rindge Ave by Jerry’s Pond?
The point of widening the path is not to increase bike speeds but to reduce conflicts between bikes and pedestrians. Having more space actually makes it easier and safer to go slowly. It is a direct response to perpetual complaints about this. Leaving it as it is is demanding the city do nothing to address a problem, and maintain a crucial transportation corridor to an inferior standard.
Best practices are actually good to implement, fear mongering lies about trees and a misguided description about what this is even for, while exaggerating the danger of bikes not withstanding
If this project truly did threaten to kill 100+ trees, I certainly would not support it, which is why I went and read through Cambridge4Trees’s materials (the source of this number) for myself when this came up over a year ago. Their annotated review of the 75% project plans is posted on their website for anyone who’d also like to fact-check for themselves. Unfortunately, the reality is that this claim is exaggeration to a degree that borders on fear-mongering.
As someone else already mentioned, the city plans to cut down only 5 already-decaying trees, but I agree that beyond just outright removals, impacts on critical root zones must also be accounted for. But a good portion of the “more than 100 trees at risk” comes from the way Cambridge4Trees lumps together the stone dust shoulder material with asphalt – misleading given that stone dust is commonly used in tree wells as it is permeable and allows for continued root growth/expansion, and isn’t really much different from the dirt shoulders that already border the path today.
This bait-and-switch is also where the claims of “massive widening” come from. Unfortunately, it seems like if you repeat a lie enough, people will start believing it: see how a previous commenter (@Elizabeth Frenette) thinks the trees will have “8 more feet of concrete poured on top of them all along the path” when that is absolutely not what is happening. The actual increase in asphalt surface area is only ~15%!
Back to the tree count: that leaves (by Cambridge4Trees’s own tally) 44 trees that are “high risk” due to close proximity to asphalt, plus 26 trees that are less close to the path/at lower risk and should be fine with some treatment. For the latter, treatment will indeed be given: the project page lists things like air spading/soil decompaction, soil amendments, and deep root fertilization. If there’s additional treatments the city should consider, the author and the other members of Cambridge4Trees are free to propose them…but it seems they will not be satisfied with anything less than zero changes to the original design of Linear Park, absolutely refusing to accommodate the ways usage of the park has evolved over the nearly 4 decades since it first opened (for starters, the Minuteman Bikeway didn’t even exist at the time, and the Alewife area had a lot less going on).
But what about the 44 trees at “high risk due to asphalt”? That’s still a LOT of trees! Well, here’s the kicker: turns out that at least 30 of the trees in this group will NOT actually see any increases in asphalt around their root zones as part of the proposed redesign (for example, Cambridge4Trees counts the dozen trees in the tree wells at the park gateways around Mass Ave as “high risk” – yet the redesign leaves those tree wells as-is). In other words, they are already “high risk” in the original/existing design that the author is holding up as the ideal, yet this “high risk” is falsely being attributed to/blamed on the redesign. This is incredibly misleading and dishonest accounting.
So, in reality, maybe around a dozen trees will actually see any increase in root-zone asphalt due to the redesign, which is a far cry from the “100+ trees at risk” claim being flung around. And this increase isn’t the death sentence it’s made out to be, either – think about all the trees in tree wells around the city that have much more pavement around their roots than any of these Linear Park trees will ever see, yet continue to grow regardless.
Finally, the author also conveniently neglected to mention that as part of the project, around 120 to 150 new trees totaling ~200-300 new caliper inches, will be planted.
Many of the other arguments in the op-ed and comments against this project are similarly dubious, but I’ll stop here for now since this is already getting too long. But if anyone’s got good-faith points/questions I’m happy to discuss further.
Picoplaff, you have not addressed that widening will enable cyclists to go faster (I am not looking for an extension of the minute man for this stretch). You have also not addressed the cost and the fact that the extra 30 seconds is lost when the cyclists hit the eternal light at Cedar. What is the point? It seems to me that the city could fix the paving and add some more trees without the widening and majority of people would be very happy at 1/16 the cost.
@picoplaff, A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets a chance to put its shoes on. I wish we had actual defenders of the urban tree canopy in Cambridge instead of groups like Cambridge4trees that use outright and clearly deliberate lies about trees in order to oppose projects with clear environmental and social benefits.
Urban tree canopy is extremely important, especially as climate change deepens. It deserves better defenders than this.
@Passingbell, you have still not demonstrated why cyclists going slightly faster is even a problem, or even that this project is likely to produce that result. You also ignore that the stated intention of the widening is not to increase bike speeds but to reduce conflicts between different modes. And you ignore that the existing path width produces conflicts that people consistently complain about (this project is happening for a reason) it is simply not true that most people would be happy if you left it as is.
@Passingbell, sure, I’ve got plenty of thoughts to share on that, just didn’t want my previous comment to get too long. First of all, the reason I support path widening isn’t to “shave 30 seconds off my ride” (quoting the author) because yeah, if that WAS the goal then it would be pointless given the other bottlenecks along the corridor, as you yourself point out. The “save 30 seconds” talking point is putting words in my mouth, something that project opponents CLAIM is what I want – in order to frame cyclists as selfish, overly entitled people seeking a bit of convenience at great expense (in terms of money and/or trees) to everyone else.
The actual benefit of path widening is a safer, more pleasant park experience for everyone, regardless of whether they are on feet or wheels. Others have already said this so adding my voice probably won’t change your mind, but here’s how I see it:
Given a path that is well-used by a variety of people, which the one in Linear Park certainly is, there will be a wide range of speeds among path users. This isn’t just a cyclists vs. pedestrians issue – think toddlers or people with mobility aids vs. runners or rollerbladers, for example. And different people moving at different speeds means passing interactions are necessary.
It’s fine if these interactions are infrequent, but it starts becoming an issue when the path gets crowded. Slower users will get annoyed at having to move over every 30 seconds to let someone pass, to the point where they might just opt to walk off to the side of the path instead (even if that means trampling tree roots). Meanwhile, faster users repeatedly getting stuck behind others might try to squeeze past as soon as a gap presents itself (even if it’s a bit close for comfort), or go off-path themselves.
Note that when I say “faster users” it literally can be anyone going faster than someone else. I’m definitely no speedster – my top speed on my bike is typically <10mph, and that wouldn't increase even if you gave me a path a mile wide. But it still makes me faster than every walker! And while I always ring my bell as a heads-up if I can't pass without giving a wide berth, it would be nice not to have to use it so much. Sometimes I get stink-eye from people who don't understand bells are part of standard path etiquette and interpret the ring as a rude "HEY MOVE IT." Sometimes I feel bad for interrupting people's conversations. Some people startle, even though my bell isn't particularly loud, which also makes me feel bad. Not to mention all the people with both earbuds in who can't hear me at all.
A bit of extra width would make this kind of one-on-one negotiation much less necessary, by letting more passing interactions happen at increased, safer distances. Both the people passing and the people being passed can get on with their day, rather than having to worry about each other.
Now you might say "but what about inconsiderate jerks traveling at reckless speeds and giving no warning"? Well, NOT widening the path certainly isn't going to deter them – if past comments from project opponents are to be believed, there are many such people already using the path today, despite the existing narrow width. The actual solution for improving safety and comfort in this case is, once again, providing more room on the path – that way, reckless speeders will pass you a few feet away rather than nearly clipping you!
It's not just me saying these things, either. The Cambridge Pedestrian Committee strongly supports the redesign. In addition, the public engagement process for this project has garnered hundreds of comments, including over 600 survey responses, and there were plenty that supported widening and noted the path was too narrow/crowded. As for the side paths: the live Zoom poll results of an early design meeting had only 14 out of 80 respondents who disliked them. Now, this might seem to contradict the public sentiment as reported by the op-ed author – but it's important to remember that the "public testimony" she refers to was from an in-person-only special meeting of the Committee for Public Planting, meaning those comments were from a pretty specific/narrow audience.
As for cost – there is a very detailed cost breakdown posted on the project page: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Projects/LinearPark/linearpark_100percentcostestimate.pdf
Feel free to examine it for yourself but nothing stood out to me as problematic. As is typical for most construction projects, the big-ticket items are the ones requiring excavation work – irrigation, drainage, and electrical – all of which are unaffected by path width. And if you took the items specifically related to paving and shaved off 15% (the approximate increase in asphalt surface area under the redesign), and even deleted the stone dust side paths altogether, it would not make a significant dent in the overall budget.
It’s also worth noting that around a million dollars appears to be dedicated for landscaping and tree care purposes – including tree fencing/protection, air spading/soil amendments, new plantings, soil/mulch material, etc. That alone puts the project price tag above the “1/16 the cost” you say a no-widening version of the project would be, so I’m pretty skeptical that’s actually possible. How are you calculating that?
Picoplaff, so essentially you are a cyclist that doesn’t want to have to slow down or negotiate with pedestrians for space. The difference in our pov is that I actually don’t want Linear Path to be an extension of Minute Man in culture or operation. Based on how I have seen the City of Cambridge operate in the past, I am not at all surprised there are 600 survey responses but no former notification to Linear neighbors or abutters. Do those responders even live in Cambridge?
It’s fine if we have varying points of view–even expected. Certainly your points are as valid as mine. What is not ok is the way the City of Cambridge continues to throw North Cambridge residents under the bus, refusing to listen to the feedback from those living adjacent from their latest traffic experiment.
@Passingbell are you only capable of operating in bad faith? How on earth is that your interpretation of what they said?
“The difference in our pov is that I actually don’t want Linear Path to be an extension of Minute Man in culture or operation”
This is nonsense. Whether you like it or not the linear park IS an extension of the minute man and several other multi use paths. This is not a reasonable desire and attempting to impose it is demanding the city sabotage active transportation. There is no environmental argument for that.
You do not in fact speak for all north Cambridge residents either.
You really want to break the connection between the community path, the minute man, the MCRT, and the Alewife brook paths?
Well thank you for explicitly saying that out loud because no that is not as valid as the points others are raising and I hope you keep saying it so everyone knows not to take you seriously.
I’m appreciating the range of thoughts here, such as Elizabeth’s imaginative use of the park with her kids, Passingbell’s acknowledgment of culture/operation, and picoplaff’s considerations about passing slower movers (Yay for that bell.) But Slaw, why such bitter condemnations? What’s the need to paint anyone who sees this differently as an enemy or a fool? Or a liar.
I’m wondering what’s really at stake for you here?
Could it could be that…
– A slow rolling pace is totally objectionable, even for a short distance?
– Not widening the asphalt to 14 feet is somehow failing bikers once again?
– And keeping this stretch more less as is signals to the world no-one cares about the endless growth of automotive traffic? Bicycles are the answer.
– Or, Linear Park shouldn’t be a park?
Passing bell is explicitly saying they want to sever a crucial connection for active transportation. What a propagandistic depiction of what they said and a deliberate misreading of what I am saying.
If you don’t want to be called a liar stop lying and clearly operating in bad faith.
“A slow rolling pace is totally objectionable, even for a short distance?”
Where did I once say this? The problem is that the narrow width does not in fact promote slow speeds, it manufactures conflicts. As Picoplaff pointed out in the other thread: “national/federal guidelines from AASHTO and FHWA for best practices. give the path a grade of “D” under the current width and user count data/mix of user modes, indicative of “degraded levels of service” rather than “fine as is.”
“Not widening the asphalt to 14 feet is somehow failing bikers once again?”
Yes. Maintaining a path at a degraded level of service is failing bikers. Some of you explicitly want that too and are using the misinformation about trees as cover. At least passingbell is honest in their opposition to biking here, I cannot say the same about you.
“ And keeping this stretch more less as is signals to the world no-one cares about the endless growth of automotive traffic? Bicycles are the answer.”
Bicycles are PART of the answer to reducing car usage, yes. Maintaining a crucial multiuse path to inferior standards is an impediment to that.
“Or, Linear Park shouldn’t be a park?”
Again where did I ever say anything like this. It is a park, it will still be a park in these plans. Stop with the hyperbolic fear mongering.
Be honest with your intentions and stop hiding behind misinformation and deliberately mis characterization. You clearly agree with passing bell, at least they can say what they actually think out loud.
Picoplaff,
I don’t need someone to tell me what Linear Path is or isn’t. As noted in my original I post use the path multiple times a week, including for cycling. I also made NO mention of severing the path.
Faster cycling is simply the not the direction I want the path to go, especially since they will hit the eternal light at Cedar and the saved 30 seconds offers nothing. One of the reasons I have this stance is that cyclists often do to human traffic what they accuse cars of doing to them. Get as myopic as you want- but I am done with Cambridge’s approach of pushing woke bike/traffic experiments (that benefit a minority) down our throat and wasting millions of dollars in the process. I want something that feels more like a park not the MM trail raceway in the morning /evening. And BTW- I don’t have issues with MM because it is operating as it was intended. Linear was not created, designed or funded under the same intention. Those who want to go faster should use Dudley street which was already reconfigured some years ago to give more space to cyclists and slow cars down–something that wasn’t the best thing for me personally (our neighborhood was informed not consulted) and I just let it be.
“ I also made NO mention of severing the path.”
Yes you did.
“I actually don’t want Linear Path to be an extension of Minute Man in culture or operation”
How would this be possible without severing the path?
For at least the 5th time now the point of this project is not to increase bike speeds or “save 30 seconds” it is to reduce conflicts on the path.
The linear park and the minute man were in fact designed with very similar intentions to serve as multi-use trails through green space.
Dudley street has no dedicated bike facilities and is in no way an all ages and abilities friendly bike route in the same way the linear park is.
Also “I am done with Cambridge’s approach of pushing woke bike/traffic experiments (that benefit a minority) down our throat and wasting millions of dollars in the process.”
You don’t know what “woke”means but thanks again for saying the quiet part out loud and making it abundantly clear the effort to stop these improvements is deeply reactionary and motivated by petty animosity and a sense of entitlement.
“I have this stance is that cyclists often do to human traffic what they accuse cars of doing to them.”
This is also nonsense. Three cyclists were killed by drivers in Cambridge alone last year. Drivers kill cyclists and pedestrians at least once a week in Massachusetts. A cyclist has not killed a pedestrian any time in recent history (going back decades) and serious injuries are few and far between.
You diminish the real harm created by cars, framing it as only an“accusation,” while accusing cyclists of doing something that there is absolutely no data to support the claim that they do.
You can have this stance if you want but downplaying a serious and well documented problem while exaggerating a complete non-issue is again not something anyone else has any reason to take seriously, and absolutely not something we should orient policy around.
Dudley street is also one way without any exception for bikes. It is not a viable alternative to a two way path.