Three years in, the Garden Street redesign continues to be contentious. How did we get here? During the public process for the project in 2022, several options were considered and to keep some parking, a decision was made for one-way car traffic for several blocks. This decision to prioritize parking and make a two-way street one-way has not been made for any other street where recent Cycling Safety Ordinance bike lane projects have been completed.
Since the change, despite measures taken to alleviate adverse effects, concerns about cut-through traffic, speeding and congestion remain. Thus, following a policy order from December, this week the City Council considered whether to restore two-way traffic. After careful consideration, I voted for what I believe is best for the city: to return Garden Street to two-way car travel while keeping two-way bike lanes. I want to provide some context for my vote to return Garden Street to two-way car traffic and respond to some concerns expressed.
Safety: Lots of people assert that the voted configuration (Option 4) is not as safe. That assertion lacks evidence. Bidirectional bike lanes are part of our bike lane toolkits and are safe, as confirmed publicly by the city manager and transportation staff. Only options deemed safe were presented and considered. In fact it was one of the options originally proposed by city staff. We have bidirectional bike lanes in other areas of the city, including a new one on Huron Avenue.
There are pros and cons to different bike lane layouts based on specific locations. A safety advantage to bidirectional lanes is that cyclists of different speeds can pass each other safely without leaving the lane and going into the roadway. And Public Works equipment can more easily clear the lanes. Since safety is obviously important, I asked the city for any data on the safety of bidirectional lanes. Since lanes on Brattle Street in the heart of Harvard Square with tons of traffic of all kinds were installed in 2017, we have robust experience. The answer was that the city didn’t have the comprehensive data I sought, but the data the city did have that was sent to me showed excellent safety after the installation of the bidirectional lanes on Brattle for pedestrians and cyclists. So our own evidence in Cambridge shows bidirectional lanes are safe. I did hear some city staff say the other option was safer, but I had asked for data – and there was no data presented. Yes, navigating bidirectional lanes can be tricky, and drivers and all users will have to build familiarity with the design. But our own experiential data showed that safety with bidirectional lanes was not compromised.
If there is other data, I am happy to review it. The only study I found directly studying two-way and one-way separated bike lanes did not find evidence of worse safety outcomes. Maybe there are other studies, but I hope we can all rest assured the new configuration will be safe.
Community process: There was no consensus when the one way plan was decided. That is revisionist history, as anyone who went to any community meeting on Garden Street knows. Then and now the neighborhood is split. Those going only by the number of people speaking would conclude greater support for the one-way status quo. I don’t vote based only on the most organized groups’ efforts. Based on emails, public comment and in talking with many people in the area, I judge that there is more support in the broad area for a return to two-way car traffic than keeping it one-way. To suggest I am voting out of a deference to the wealthy people who live nearby is tone deaf to the less-than-wealthy people in the neighborhood who were vocal, feel left out of discussions and who matter. People of all backgrounds were advocating for both options. This decision was not about ignoring a coalition of people on one side or the other; it was about navigating an issue that clearly split the city – and voting for a compromise that maintained safe bike lanes in both directions as an essential priority.
Travel of students: Many people wrote about how important safety is for Cambridge Rindge and Latin School students headed to Danehy Park or Russell Field. I agree. Their route will be as safe with separated two-way bike lanes. Plus, visibility will be better, instead of bikes being hidden by parked cars. The most challenging part of that ride is after the Garden Street bike lanes stop. I believe we should extend the bike lanes all the way to Danehy, along Sherman Street or Garden Street, and I wish the hundreds had been advocating for that, which would be a true safety improvement for the area.
Congestion: This change will not magically disappear congestion. And yes, Garden Street will have more cars, as in the past. In exchange, though, other streets will have fewer cars. Traffic flow will be smoother in the area and therefore improved. There will be challenges to ensure optimal traffic flow, but the sense that congestion will be worse are based on projections. We don’t know. And let’s not forget that despite the best efforts of the traffic department beforehand, clearly the adverse impact of the one-way on Garden Street was underestimated, which led to changes made after installation: signals were changed, no left turns put on two streets, etc. And still backups occur in the afternoon on surrounding streets, leading to idling, pollution and lost time. Those flawed projections showed that despite best efforts, our projections are not perfect. Observing history and on-the-ground reality led me to believe this solution will be better overall. I do hope that we will use all tools we can to address concerns about congestion and availability for deliveries.
Context: This change does not make the city more car friendly or incentivize car travel. Rather, it affirms that on-street parking is not the only or the primary use of our public way. In the fall, before signing onto the December policy order asking the city to consider two-way options, I reviewed available information and talked to community members, city staff and advocacy groups on the idea of two-way car and bicycle travel. The tradeoff would clearly be less parking on Garden Street and would likely mean a bidirectional bike lane instead of lanes on both sides. Bicycle advocates indicated that as long as this change wouldn’t result in the removal of bike lanes, that it seemed there was no one right answer, since the tradeoff did not eliminate bike lanes. Unfortunately this issue has, perhaps predictably, ended with an organized effort with some lack of clarity on the impacts on cyclists. Some cyclists I spoke with wrongly assumed that bike lanes would be taken away.
Summary: Quick-build bike lanes have been a key strategy of the Cycling Safety Ordinance, not only because of the cost savings and the speed in which implementation can occur but also because it allows for additional changes if appropriate. We need to be willing to revisit projects and make adjustments at times. Garden Street, with two-way car traffic, will not be the same as it was five years ago, since bike lanes remain. It will have more cars than now, and should also have slower speeds due to narrow lanes. The road will be safe for cyclists and pedestrians and there will be two-way bicycle travel in dedicated, protected bike lanes.
If we want a full network of accessible and safe bike lanes, which I absolutely do, per Policy Order 152 from December, we need to be amenable to a variety of solutions. We will absolutely not get there if we don’t consider the option of bidirectional bike lanes when appropriate. Many existing roadways are too narrow to accommodate all the necessary uses otherwise. And we will not get to a comprehensive network by ignoring the very real traffic concerns in the area or by walling ourselves off to alternative street designs. I am certain this explanation of why I voted yes will not appease those who are slamming me. I can only hope they read it. I always try to be transparent about my reasoning.
The writer is a Cambridge city councillor.
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.
My favorite part of this piece, which I do appreciate Patty publishing:
“I believe we should extend the bike lanes all the way to Danehy, along Sherman Street or Garden Street, and I wish the hundreds had been advocating for that, which would be a true safety improvement for the area.”
Patty is in office! She could propose this very thing! Has she? If not, then why make this very convenient whataboutism?
I bet the cycling advocates would love that. Last I checked they have been busy fighting and losing against Patty on many counts (this topic; Cambridge St.; Broadway St.; etc.). Must have slipped their mind.
I look forward to Patty voting against this imaginary proposal sometime in the next iteration of the council.
Absolutely: Garden St. will stay better than it was in, say, 2020. I hope the same for the council.
A well-organized opposition was myself and another neighbor with a poster and a google docs petition trying to at least let our neighbors know that they were putting this change out as a city council decision, talking to neighbors, and putting up posters around the neighborhood, talk about revisionist history. She and Paul Toner orchestrated the whole thing in some shady private meetings with supporters, threw it on the council agenda on Thursday hoping for a quick Monday decision in December out of the blue without running it past the transportation commissioner who they knew was on vacation that week.
Nolan for some reason no longer is willing to listen to what her neighbors want because she was angry that she had a bad idea that was rejected as unviable and decided to force the issue. I doubt she’s following through or that she cares about the people who she is causing harm to by removing all of their parking and pullover space.
We certainly can do better.
Thank you Patty for this thorough opinion.
But the fact remains that the Transportation department, with its considerable expertise, wanted a different option that you, Toner, Wilson, Simmons and Zusy voted for.
I am still puzzled that you felt that your judgement and assessment should override theirs.
Convenient, I suppose, that the supposed evidence of more people being opposed to the current configuration rather than supportive of it is the only evidence that is not publicly verifiable.
We can see how many people spoke at the Cambridge City Council Meetings, but not Patti’s email inbox or the conversations she had on the street.
I cannot believe councilor Nolan wrote “I believe we should extend the bike lanes all the way to Danehy, along Sherman Street or Garden Street, and I wish the hundreds had been advocating for that”. I personally testified twice in favor of this exact thing! She is on the council!!! I guess she sees hundreds of kids biking along an unsafe street and thought to herself “wish there was someone on the city council who cared…” Just mind boggling. I do wish hundreds of people voting in November remembered this decision.
Patty Nolan’s op-ed defending her vote raises several concerns:
1. Her claim that two-way bike lanes are safer lacks evidence and ignores the Transportation Commissioner’s conclusion that the current one-way design is safer.
2. Her claim of community consensus is misleading—public comments largely supported the one-way plan.
3. Her congestion argument is speculative and contradicts expert advice that the current design minimizes congestion.
Her vote undermines Cambridge’s climate goals by promoting car use.
This sets a troubling precedent, signaling a retreat from progressive planning.
I had high hopes when Patty was elected, but this feels like political point-scoring over the public good.
Next election: No to Patty Nolan
This is classic political double-speak.
Nolan admits public comments favored the one-way design but dismisses them as “organized group efforts”—undermining public input while ignoring that the push for change was also organized!
She frames her vote as balanced and evidence-based, yet cites little evidence, cherry-picks arguments, and ignores expert advice from the Transportation Department, which says the new design will be worse.
She claims to support bike lanes but has repeatedly voted against them. She says she wishes “hundreds had advocated” for extended bike lanes—they have. She just chose to side with a vocal minority.
A forward-thinking approach would have strengthened Cambridge’s commitment to safety and climate goals—not compromised them for short-term appeasement.
Patty Nolan’s vote and her letter reveal a disconnect from community needs, expert recommendations, and safety priorities.
The city’s transportation department recommended maintaining the current design, supported by public testimony, emails, and petitions. Yet, the city is now spending money to implement changes that may worsen conditions.
Nolan’s assertion of broad public support lacks verification. She references private conversations, while formal feedback strongly favored keeping the existing design.
This aligns with a pattern in her voting record: prioritizing minority interests over public consensus. Her past opposition to bike lanes, despite strong community support, has not been forgotten.
Nolan and other councilors appear to be making politically motivated decisions, catering to a minority for re-election rather than prioritizing the city’s best interests.
Happy to reply to some of the responses. On whether public was only in favor of keeping: As I noted, the neighborhood is split. There is data – as documented by the December policy order responses and the April report. ASk other councillors to confirm that we got hundreds of separate emails asking us to return Garden to two way. And hundreds of people signed the petition to keep it one way. AS for whether it was an organized effort by those wanting to keep it one way – yes the petition started by a person and small group. It was publicized at least two times in emails sent to the large list by Cambridge Bike Safety as something people should consider – giving thousands of people information about the petition, without taking a stance. Then that changed and there were two separate emails focused exclusively on the petition, sent to the thousands on the list and urging people to sign and write to the council. If that is not organized, what is?
And on the safety issue: Where is the evidence? I posted publicly all the data I had on safety from the city – on the Brattle St. bidirectional lanes in the heart of Harvard Square, a far more dense and busy stretch of road than Garden St. The report the city sent me, acknowledging that we don’t have more comprehensive data, showed better pedestrian safety and cyclist in the 17 month period before and after showed 1 incident pre and 1 post. I also cited the only study I found that compared one way and two way bike lanes. And I said I would happily review any other studies. Again, where is the evidence?
@Patty — the hypocrisy is staggering.
Street safety has been extensively studied. Data consistently show that one-way streets with traffic calming—like the current Garden St design—are safer for everyone, including drivers and pedestrians. That’s why the transportation department recommended keeping it.
Yet you claim the redesign is safe. Where’s the data for that? It’s ironic to ignore a body of evidence and then make an evidence-free claim.
It’s also hypocritical to criticize organizing efforts to preserve the current design when you have said nothing about the organizing from groups like Cambridge Streets for All, whose efforts you supported by voting against bike lanes.
Councilor Nolan:
Marc McGovern emphasized expert analysis supporting Option #1 for Garden Street as the safest and least congestive solution.
His evidence-based approach contrasts with your decision to oppose expert recommendations.
If residents were truly divided, why disregard expert advice? Do you believe your expertise surpasses theirs?
Your claim of evidence-based reasoning seems unconvincing, hinting at other motivations influencing your choice.
This aligns with a pattern of prioritizing minority interests over broader, data-driven solutions. Notably, you voted against bike lanes despite evidence of their safety, negligible impact on businesses, and overwhelming public support during testimony.
Councilor Nolan,
You mentioned extending bike lanes, but the option you voted for reduces parking. This might lead to calls to remove bike lanes to restore parking.
Will you commit to preserving and extending bike lanes, and oppose any efforts to remove them?
Patty, you did the right thing! As much as I loved walking every day on the one way Garden Street (few cars, fewer bikes), there is one important factor that nobody in this discussion seems to be aware of. As a result of traffic pattern changes, Raymond Street became very busy, with lots of cars, school buses. Raymond, much much much more than Garden is full of young kids walking and biking to/from Graham and Parks, Peabody, and RAUC. Intersections are hard to cross with heavy traffic, have seen crossing guards only at the G&P times. Kids this age do lots of stupid stuff (saw a kid on a bike cut right in front of the bus…I almost had a heart attack, but the kid seemed unfazed). Anything to calms the traffic on that street should be celebrated by the community.
To Frank: What analysi did Councillor McGovern cite? As I stated and wrote, I cited the evidence and data the city provided on actual experience in Cambridge with bidirectional bike lanes – on Brattle St. And I pointed to a study with a control. What evidence was presented that this configuration will be less safe? Councillors quoted the city staff yet the only evidence the city staff sent me when I asked showed bidirectional bike lanes were as safe for cyclists. I understand there are many who state bidirectional are not as safe. I can see reasons bidirectional is more challenging (drivers and pedestrians need to get used to them) and less challenging (cyclists of different speeds being able to pass, ease of snow clearing). Without evidence, the claim that one way is safer was not persuasive to me.
@Patty: I can’t speak for Frank, but I was referring to the *street* design—one-way vs. two-way—not the bike lanes per se.
The Cambridge Traffic Commissioner said the current one-way *street* design is safer and causes less congestion. That expert advice focused on overall street safety for everyone—drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists—not just bike lane configuration.
Street design principles are well-studied. You ignored that expert guidance on the street design—not the design of the bike lanes.
So the question remains: if residents were split, why did you go against expert advice that the current street design is safer and more efficient?
This is a reasonable question considering that you have previously ignored facts and evidence and public support to appease people upset over the bike lanes. But this time it is not about the narrow question of bike lanes. It is about street safety in general.
Expert advice was that current street design is safer. Why not take that advice?
Hi Patty – As to safety, after you remove all the parking and loading on that section of Garden to add an extra lane of vehicle traffic, that will not negate the necessity of parking and loading for the 42-unit building. No parking or loading was removed on Brattle and the Harvard Square section is one-way for vehicle traffic.
On Garden, with two two-way lanes drop-off and pick up vehicles will either park in the bicycle lanes if they’re only protected by flex posts forcing riders to move into oncoming traffic or if the lanes can’t be entered by motor vehicles, then trucks will need to stop for loading and pickup in the vehicle travel lane causing congestion and gridlock. Susan Reed explained this.
Our petition was endorsed and shared by different people and groups including Cambridge Streets for All, CBS and others bc it was the cheapest, safest option and it remains the best solution, especially the older residents who need to park near their home.
My concern is with the broader issues—not just bike lanes. I took Brooke McKenna (Traffic Commissioner) and Marc McGovern’s comments as referring to overall street safety and traffic, not the one- vs. two-way bike lane debate.
By contrast, Councilor Nolan’s defense of her vote seems narrowly focused on bike lanes.
Experts said the current design is safer overall—for pedestrians and drivers—and results in less congestion. The new design will be worse and eliminate parking. It’s troubling that a city councilor seem to vote based on a narrow view rather than considering the broader impacts.
Now we’re reverting to a worse design just to appease a few nearby residents. That’s not how we make decisions that serve the greater good.
Councillor Nolan, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts in this public forum. Dialogue on this, or any issue, is even important, especially when you know you’re going to face a lot of disagreement.
My concern with this Policy Order was more about process than substance. It always seemed like a narrowly popular issue, both on the Council and in the neighborhood.
Some people talk about leaders who are thermometers vs. leaders who are thermostats — those who take the temperature of the room vs. those who set it. We had a lot of thermometers in this situation. The more we talked about this, the more inflamed people got to be and the harder it was to listen to each other. There was a real opportunity to do some problem solving and healing within my neighborhood. Instead, people are still angry at each other and where we are.
I think the most frustrating thing about this vote is the tight deadline to get it done. We have high-priority projects that our DPW need to do this year and next — Main St and Broadway Safety Projects, Cambridge Street Safety Project, the River St Reconstruction Project (that also includes new bus and bike lanes).
Which of those projects are now less important than re-litigating an already completed project? I find it hard to believe that this shift of priorities is what is “best for the city”.