There are serious concerns with the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Phase III greenway improvement plans for Memorial Drive, which are intended to improve bike and pedestrian paths and restore landscaping along the Charles River.
The project infringes upon a Riverfront Protection Area for what appears to be more than 70 percent of the length of the project’s shoreline. In light of sea-level rise projections and the rapidly increasing incidence of flash floods in the United States and abroad, Cambridge already finds itself in a vulnerable position. The recent devastating floods in Western North Carolina serve as a cautionary tale.
It has been heartening to learn that a consultants’ transportation analysis determined that there are no adverse traffic repercussions brought about by reducing the current number of travel lanes to two from four. This presents a low-cost and low-impact opportunity to repurpose the existing roadway to include bicycle lanes, a solution that would save the state approximately $12 million. This approach would cost roughly $2 million as opposed to the estimated $14 million and would take months rather than years to implement..
In addition to significant cost and time savings, other advantages to working within the existing Memorial Drive right of way are as follows:
- There is very little, if any, impact on the Riverfront Protection Area.
- Primary modes of travel such as cars, walking and riding bicycles are separated and protected, eliminating the need for “shared use” paths that are dangerous and uncomfortable, particularly to our most vulnerable citizens.
- By not introducing 10 feet of paving on the riverbank as per the Phase III plans, the need to steepen the grades along the edge of the river is eliminated. Steeper grades entail the need for retaining structures such as coir logs; removal of large trees along the shoreline; and decreased access to the water’s edge. This has a direct impact on the extent of viewing frontage for events such as the Head of the Charles regatta.
Maintaining the existing slope profile also eliminates the need for the viewing platforms proposed in the Phase III design. Incidentally, and pertinent to review under the Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act, the viewing platforms fall entirely within the boundaries of the Charles River floodplain.
Another issue of significant importance is the world-renowned and revered “Sycamore Allée” laid out by the firm of Olmsted & Eliot in the late 1890s. In 2018, Florrie Wescoat (then co-chair of the Cambridge Plant and Garden Club) and I, along with two sets of arborists, conducted an inventory and assessment of the sycamore trees between JFK and Ash streets. What we discovered was that the trees were aligned horizontally along the north and south sides of Memorial Drive and spaced consistently at 40 feet on center.
The Phase III proposed pathway layout neither adheres to the intended original alignment nor spacing of the trees. The Sycamore Allée is historically significant, and it is incumbent on all of us to respect the designer’s original intent.
Elena Saporta, Ellery Street, 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.
The slope of the riverbank, whether slightly steeper or slightly more gradual, will have no effect on Cambridge’s flood risk. Most of the river’s edge isn’t in its original location, and this is a very small part of the riverbank.
This feels like yet another instance of alarmism that often accompanies proposed changes in the city. This will not cause a flooding disaster, it is time to stop misappropriating climate change for neighborhood preservation.
It took me a couple of reads to piece together Ms. Saporta’s argument. While I believe she’s mistaken about flood risk, I think she makes a compelling point about canopy loss.
Cambridge is significantly higher than Boston, in excess of ten feet along some stretches of riverbank. Boston is our floodplain. Changing the slope won’t lower the city. Projected 2070 flood maps show significant risk to the HBS campus while risk across Cambridge is limited to Magazine Beach and Fresh Pond.
Speaking as a cyclist, I don’t see a significant advantage of the current proposal over the plan discussed in this letter—so long as there’s a hard barrier between car and bike lanes. Would I rather be further away from traffic? Sure. Is it worth chopping down the canopy rather than using bollards or curbing? I’m skeptical.
I appreciate the author’s work characterizing the layout of the sycamore trees. Knowing our history is important and it is good this is recorded.
But these trees will not be harmed by the proposed process. We should not delay this important modernization because it will make the trees slightly “off center” to the roadway.
Thank you Elena for writing this thoughtful and important piece. I agree completely.
I rely on a bike (and my feet) to get around and I agreee with Elena (and Cantabrigand’s last point). I am not an aborist but the sycamores have looked unwell (e.g., early summer browning of leaves) over the past couple of years and the extensive and exorbitantly costly phase 3 work will stress them even more.
Thanks for this careful analysis. Anything that saves trees and saves time and saves the city’s money makes sense to me.
If it saves money and doesn’t sacrifice the utility of the path, it sounds like a no-brainer. The big question mark to me about the re-alignment is if it would make the connections to other parts of the path beyond the phase III project area awkward or less safe.
I am a bit confused by the requests in this letter. If I understand correctly, you want to reduce the amount of asphalt along the river by halving the number of lanes on Memorial Drive (I agree), but you also want to keep the existing roadway width. As I understand it, the current DCR plan is to depave half the lanes and only slightly widen the existing paved multi-use path, which seems as though it would result in a net reduction of paved surface, and have the added bonus of keeping folks on the path separated from motor vehicles?
Sorry if I am misunderstanding! I share your desire for less asphalt and more park space along the river, and I do often disagree with DCR’s plans for overly prioritizing motor vehicles, but apart from hopes for a bit more traffic calming, I thought this one generally looked pretty good!
The existing plan is to reduce the roadway width and slightly widen the path. It would reduce asphalt and replace it with green space, including dedicated stormwater retention infrastructure. It would also create more distance between path users and drivers.
This proposal would make the plan worse not better.
Reducing the roadway should be a priority. Cars travel way too fast on Mem Drive.
The Mem Drive plan promises significant improvements, including traffic calming through lane reduction.
While 10 trees are slated for removal, the plan compensates by planting 50 new trees.
Concerns about flooding are unwarranted, as the plan incorporates measures such as porous pavement to protect trees from stormwater runoff and salt damage. Additional stormwater management features, including swales and rain gardens, are also included.
The mixed-use paths are well-designed, ensuring safety for all users. Similar paths in other cities have proven effective in enhancing safety.
Overall, the plan will create a more resilient waterfront and improve safety. Traffic calming has been shown to significantly reduce accidents. We need to prioritize safety over trees —trees can and will be replaced, but lives cannot.