A redesign of Cambridge’s Linear Park will go forward without a reconsideration asked by the city’s Committee on Public Planting, city manager Yi-An Huang said.
Plans to widen a paved path to accommodate bicyclist commuters, walkers and other kinds of recreation would come “at the expense of existing trees,” the committee said last month. In a response dated Jan. 13, the city manager thanked its members but said a review of the plans affirmed that they were being implemented thoughtfully, with controls in place that reflected the shared goals of staff, users and the group’s members.
“We are not looking to make additional changes to the plans,” Huang told the 12-person committee. “I do want to emphasize again the value of your work.”
Committee input has led to change, including keeping the Linear Park path narrow in some spots, adding care for mature trees and relocating water and electrical conduit lines to go under paved areas. Plans for some concrete pads under benches and water fountains have also changed to minimize disruption to roots, Huang said. New and better seating, play areas and lighting are included in the work.
The group issued its letter Dec. 20 with the understanding that January was when the $7.2 million redesign might go out for bid. An attachment to Huang’s response said the park project team will hold an open house in mid-February to review final plans with the community, and the work won’t be put out to bid until late February.
The park was completed in 1985 in North Cambridge between Alewife Station and the Cambridge-Somerville city line. That relied on a 1984 easement from the MBTA to provide a “walkway for pedestrians and bicyclists,” residents note from both sides of a debate that has lasted throughout a three-year planning process: Depending on which word is stressed, the path is considered either as belonging to bicyclists as much as pedestrians, or as being given as a “walkway” that implies slower use.
Still, the path is used by walkers and bike riders and needs to be widened to accommodate recreation and commuting side by side, city planners say. As a link between the Somerville Community Path and Minuteman Bikeway, “it’s getting busier and it’s not meeting the needs of all of its users,” project manager Charles Creagh told The Tufts Daily in 2023.
The aging paved path through the park is now an average 10.5 to 11 feet wide, but would go as wide as 14 feet in the redesign, a standard for the kind of use the Linear Park sees. That increase in impermeable surface will exacerbate stormwater runoff and and jeopardize root systems” on trees, the committee warned.
With 2 feet of stone dust on each side of the paved path, that makes for a width of 18 feet, not 14, say opponents of the current plan. State agency documents agree that stone dusts “prevent water from infiltrating. While these materials may seem more pervious than surfaces like concrete, they are designed to eliminate voids when compacted, causing the treated area to become impervious with use.”
The plan does not not remove healthy mature trees, only five deteriorated cherry trees that will be replaced and surround by 120 to 150 more new trees, city plans say.
“I have worked with staff to ensure that they understand the importance of protecting the existing trees and providing a high-quality environment for the new trees to grow and thrive,” Huang said. “We understand that involves many decisions both small and large to make sure we get the details correct. To that end, we will have DPW project managers overseeing the contractor. They will work closely with our Urban Forestry Division to ensure proper protection of the existing trees and will make necessary modifications to the design during construction to protect the existing trees.”
Huang said he knew his answer was not what the committee wanted, but that valued the group’s “time and expertise that you contribute to the city and the importance of protecting and growing our urban canopy.”
“The work of the CPP will be even more critical” in coming years, Huang said.
This post was updated Jan. 21, 2025, to add information about stone dust.
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.
It actually is up to 18′ since the pavement is 14′ with 2′ of stone dust on each side. You have to dig deep for stone dust and it us impermeable.
Then there will be the new side paths that run right through where the trees are. This is why our landscape architects estimated over 100 trees will be lost. This is just so bikes can go faster for 1/3 of a mile.
If the City Manager actually looked at and reviewed the plans, I’ll eat my hat. He just claims to believe that the people who have been shown to be wrong and/or lying throughout this entire process were telling him the truth and were totally accurate. What it comes down to is that he couldn’t even be bothered to talk to a bunch of women professionals when he had men to tell him that everything is great.
The amount of disrespect shown over and over to the members of the Committee on Public Planting should shame us all. Paid city staff couldn’t be bothered to double check the surveys that turned out to be materially wrong, nor were they willing to listen to volunteers who had spent their careers doing this type of work who did spend the time, hours and hours of uncompensated time, because they care about trees and the people who use the park.
And I am disappointed to see that the writer didn’t sully himself by talking to any of the CPP members either before more or less regurgitating a press release. He’s capable of much better.
Cambridge talks a good game about environmentalism and climate resilience, but it’s just talk, at least where green infrastructure is concerned.
“The work of the CPP will be even more critical” in coming years, Huang said. And he’ll ignore them in the coming years as well.
So here we are again with another project where the city pretends to engage the neighborhood and then ignores us, wasting hours of time we could have spent on something else. From the very beginning this is the outcome they wanted and nothing we said was going to change it. We are still going to fight it.
In our search for a new CM we wanted to go outside of the city because we were looking for someone who might stand up to entrenched vested interests instead we got someone who is nothing but a stooge for them.
Copying some details from the impressively detailed rebuttal at https://plaffd.github.io/net/linearpark (written by someone else):
“Stone dust seems to be an accepted surface material to use around trees, as it allows roots to continue expanding and growing. See this Urban Forestry guide from UF/IFAS extension for an example (https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/documents/ch_6_mw06.pdf). In fact, it’s being used in some tree wells in Cambridge already, such as these ones in Harvard Square: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3726231,-71.1190366,3a,90y,357.05h,98.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s79W4zNyONxgupa-mPQSGTA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-8.75%26panoid%3D79W4zNyONxgupa-mPQSGTA%26yaw%3D357.05!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDExNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D “
Glad to see the project moving forward, a wider path should make the park more comfortable for all users in the long run. I’m curious about the tree details though, the CM says that only five deteriorated trees will be removed, but some other commenters seem to be taking issue with that characterization of the situation, is there anything other than the increased surface that is causing concern?
On the topic of trees, there is a tree hearing coming up on the 31st (I believe) about the trees lining Broadway and Third Street along the Volpe site. The notice flyers didn’t give an email address to send in comments, but I sent in my concerns to cambridgetree@cambridgema.gov. Those trees should stay if possible!
A lot more than 5 trees will be lost because when tree roots are damaged, trees will not die right away but slowly. The following have the potential to damage tree roots:
(1) Once they widen the path to 18′ they have to move the light poles:
(a) Excavate old pole foundations 2′ x 2′ x 4′ deep and utility boxes, remove some (all) of buried electrical conduit.
(b) Excavate the new pole foundations.
(c) Trench length of the park for new electrical supply and each new light pole
(e) Excavate for new utility boxes
(2) Path widening requires digging out existing irrigation system next to path.
Trench to:
-Install new irrigation system(s)
-Connect utility boxes and more trench(es) to connect to water main (entire length of park)
-Connect new spigots; each one with a new underground shutoff for the winter
(3) Excavation for poured concrete pads for benches, bike repair stations, play equipment, art installations.
(4) Excavate for the side paths.
The City Manager says they are proceeding based on the goals of staff, users, and the Committee. Most of us would probably agree that the users’ and Committee’s goals should be driving this. But so often in Cambridge it appears that the staff’s goals are paramount. Isn’t the primary job of the staff to implement the goals of resident users, the City Council, and town committees? We are not a very democratic place
Linear Park is receiving much-needed maintenance and safety improvements, including wider paths to accommodate increased use and emergency phones.
Safety is a top priority, and trees can be replanted. Besides, the plan includes planting of more trees.
The city engages with the public and incorporates feedback, as they did here. However, it cannot accommodate every request or every committee, as doing so would result in decision-making paralysis.
While the CPP served its purpose, there are other considerations that have higher priorities take precedence over replaceable trees.
Beyond safety upgrades, Linear Park is a vital bike corridor. Every bike trip reduces traffic and pollution, benefiting everyone, whether they use the park or not.
@master: Even a “restoration not redesign” would still require new utility infrastructure, given the existing irrigation & drainage systems are in disrepair/the decades-old electrical probably isn’t up to code…but yes, this means a “trench the length of the park.” However, it’ll be a shared trench consolidating utilities, routed under the paved path to minimize root impacts. And rather than being dug up as you claim, the old conduits are being abandoned in place for even less disturbance. Plus, light pole relocations due to widening are mostly minor & I didn’t spot any moved dangerously closer to an existing tree.
Like most arguments against the project, yours is based on a kernel of truth (some excavation is happening close to trees so care will need to be taken around roots) that’s been twisted/exaggerated (tons of trees throughout the park will have their roots damaged and be killed) to frame any change as catastrophic & to demand the park design be kept frozen in 1985.
@picoplaff Linear Park requires essential maintenance, particularly for drainage improvements, which will also benefit the park’s trees. Construction is necessary. Claims about tree preservation are often used as a pretext to resist urban development. These objections lack substantive merit. The city made the right decision.
I am glad this necessary project to bring this highly used path up to minimum standards set in global best practices of path design, improve irrigation and drainage systems, and improve the health of existing and future trees was not delayed.