City councillor Patty Nolan served up another round of murky rationale in a letter to the editor (“Why yes to two-way on Garden Street,” April 11) for a decision April 7 to redesign Garden Street. The letter doubles down on a poor decision that has angered the most affected residents of the area who took action the weekend before the vote and delivered a petition with more than 700 signatures in opposition. If Nolan is now looking to assuage those 700 residents, she’s too late. The thing to have done was to do what the petition asked and back up, look for safer solutions and increase stakeholder inclusion. But for shifting reasons that baffle, Nolan and councillor Paul Toner pushed ahead for an option with a bidirectional single bike lane from Huron Avenue to the Garden Street and Concord Avenue split despite the Transportation Department and safety groups testifying that keeping Garden Street as is – one-way car traffic with parking – was the clear, safer solution.
Nolan in her letter also claimed that these expert “assertion(s) lack evidence,” and mused that after poking around on the Internet, she found no evidence that bidirectional bike lanes were any less safe than separated single-way bike lanes. This is at best misinformed and at worst disingenuous misdirection.
Having parking switch sides created a traffic calming technique called a chicane. Parked cars were also used strategically as a bike lane barrier, making Garden Street in its one-way flow configuration ideal from a safety standpoint. It’s an aspect that Nolan fails to note and one that will be gone if her desire comes to fruition. So will all the parking that benefits the area’s elderly and other residents with mobility issues. And so will loading zones.
Nolan conjectures that Garden Street is safer without parked cars because they pose potential sightline impairments for cyclists. The current design looked at and addressed this concern. In areas where sight lines have been an issue, parking spaces have been removed to eliminate the perils – and certainly parked cars are a better protective barrier than plastic flex posts, which is what will replace them when the traffic reversal is implemented mid-2026.
Before the 2022 conversion to one-way, two-way traffic made it hard for the most vulnerable residents of the area (seniors; those with mobility challenges; and families with young children) to cross Garden Street safely, as cars had a wide-open straight shot from the Sheraton Commander to Linnaean Street, sometimes speeding at more than 40 mph. Collisions were a regular occurrence before the changeover.
As far as Brattle Street goes – Nolan touts it as an example of bidirectional bike lane success – there are myriad unnatural conflict points that a cyclist must now be extra alert to as confused drivers roll through stop signs and pull out aggressively without looking both ways. This does not happen with two-way separated bike lanes; in the case of Brattle Street, the onus for safety and self preservation falls on the cyclist even though they have the legal right of way. Don’t believe me? Try making a left onto Hawthorn Street coming from the A.R.T.: if you don’t have eyes in the back of your head or dismount your bike and walk it, getting down to the Charles unscathed is a coin-toss prospect.
Additionally, Nolan doesn’t consider the complex logistics that will be a challenge for the Transportation Department when dealing with the five-way intersection at Huron, Garden and Sherman by the firehouse. Nor does she weigh the increased number of turning conflict points between cars and cyclists along the bidirectional stretch, which be greater in number with more severe hook scenarios. Furthermore, this will funnel more traffic down to the universal park on Garden Street (where it transitions into Field Street) and access points to Danehy Park, let alone the Montessori school. Then there is the matter of the increased number of turns to mitigate at Huron and Garden, which will likely result in the doubling of the current traffic light cycle (90 seconds becomes three minutes or more) and the backing up of traffic on Huron and Concord.
The December policy order that initiated all this lacked vision and thoroughness. Like Nolan’s letter, it was thin and did not consider community involvement or consult adequately with the Transportation Department in regard to safety and impact. The best I heard was a brandishing of 500 emails. We know from community meetings that many of the people who opposed the 2022 change now support it and signed the petition because they feel the change imparted a bump in safety and quality of life. Nolan says in her letter that, “the Garden Street redesign continues to be contentious.” It remains so because she and Toner did not do their homework and have not listened to the community who elected them and asked them to take pause and do better. Despite hearing this, they decided to push forward with something not fleshed out and knowingly less safe.
The reasoning for such an irrational act can only be political or personal. One is on a hot seat and the other lives near that five-way intersection. As a person who has given to both campaigns and put them prominently on my voting slates, being on the receiving side of such disregard saddens me as much as it disappoints me, but the lack of transparency, due diligence and effort to engage is beyond infuriating; it is irresponsible.
One big reason the reversal to two-way traffic was flagged as a poor solution is the degree of risk it will introduce for Cambridge’s leaders of tomorrow: the high school students who use Garden Street as their safe corridor to get to school and athletics at Danehy Park, the Pemberton courts and Russell Field. Nolan never brought this up until pushed on it, and in addressing it, finally said, “Their route will be as safe with separated two-way bike lanes.” I will applaud Nolan for her additional note to push for better safety measures on Garden and Sherman streets. That said, words are cheap. If Nolan is genuine, a policy order for that would be welcome – even better would have been if those safety changes were included in what’s been voted. That would be a real win-win, but as is, Nolan cannot guarantee the upcoming change will be as safe. She has no facts, just conjecture that goes against what many in the field with expertise have said. It will likely get someone seriously hurt.
Hopefully something along the way changes and saner minds prevail with better and safer solutions that benefit all with minimal impacts. As that process pans out or doesn’t, concerned citizens should not settle for amateur traffic planning, book-report discoveries from around the Web and late-to-the-game deflections. If this reversal goes through and someone gets hurt, the blame should start with those who pushed for it. There were options on the table to do better. They chose not to.
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.
I agree with Tom Meek’s call for transparency, community engagement, and respect for transportation experts.
Over 700 residents opposed the change, and the city’s Transportation Department recommended keeping the current one-way design for safety. That should have prompted more review and input.
The new design could increase risks for seniors, families, and students who rely on Garden Street. The loss of parking and loading zones, especially for those with mobility challenges, is a serious concern. Nolan and Toner’s rushed process and lack of consultation have damaged public trust.
Nolan’s explanation doesn’t hold up. This isn’t about bike lane direction—it’s about overall street safety and efficiency. Experts agree the current design is best. As Meek suggests, the vote appears politically or personally motivated, not grounded in facts or expert advice.
The city should prioritize evidence, especially when safety is at stake. It’s not too late to reconsider and find a better path.
I live near Garden St. and support the current one-way design, which was a major safety improvement.
Reverting to the previous, less safe two-way traffic ignores the city transportation department’s recommendation and removes parking near senior residences.
Over 700 people signed a petition, and the transportation commissioner favored keeping the current design. Nolan and Toner’s push to change it seems politically motivated—perhaps to appease wealthy homeowners or oppose cyclists—rather than based on public safety.
This is a safety issue, not a political one. My priority is safer streets for everyone, not just bike lanes.
I wish Patty Nolan and Paul Toner shared that concern.
The decision to change Garden Street made no sense—except as a political move. Just as many, if not more, people wanted to keep the current design. The city said it was safer and better as is.
So why did Nolan and Toner push for a change? It looks like an effort to appease a vocal group of supporters.
Decisions should be based on safety and the public good, not scoring political points. Councilors are supposed to serve the people—not themselves.