How should decisions get made in Cambridge? Who should have a seat at the table? On April 7 the City Council approved a one-sentence policy order “That the city manager and appropriate staff move forward with Option 4 to reopen Garden Street to two-way traffic while maintaining separated bike lanes,” introduced by Paul Toner, mandating a design change of his own devising along the stretch of Garden Street between Huron and Concord avenues. A narrow 5-4 vote overruled the experts and the very public process that informed the current design. It deepened a split in our neighborhood instead of taking an opportunity to heal it. It will rip out, at taxpayer expense, the existing design that was installed only 2.5 years ago. That design added separated bike lanes and converted the road to a one-way for vehicles to preserve a lane for parking and loading (the road is not wide enough for two-way car traffic plus parking plus bike lanes).
What should be a question left to traffic engineers trained in the complexity of road safety and network design was snatched by a political body for political ends. This is decision-making at its worst. How did we get here?
Community engagement
The current design was developed in 2022, after four community meetings (May 24, 2022; July 12, 2022; Aug. 9, 2022; and Sept. 20, 2022). Our observations and priorities were solicited by city staff. The options they presented at each successive meeting evolved the design to reflect our feedback. Common themes voiced by neighbors were the preservation of parking and the safety of the bike lane design.
As soon as the road changes were completed in November 2022, a backlash began. People felt as though their side streets in the surrounding neighborhoods were getting too much overflow traffic. The city responded with three listening sessions (Nov. 9, 2022; Nov. 29, 2022; and Jan. 3, 2023) and installed multiple “no left turn” signs to modify traffic flow.
The city’s Transportation Department provided more details in a 63-page report. It considered alternative designs and specifically named returning Garden Street to two-ways “non-viable.” Reverting to two-ways would require the elimination of all parking and loading on Garden Street (parking and loading had been a key project goal) and would increase congestion, particularly on all streets at the five-way intersection where Garden crosses Huron and at eight other intersections: Chauncy, Walker, Shepard, Bond, Linnaean, Robinson, Fernald and Mason. The 2023 report included new traffic count data showing that increases in volume on side streets were marginal.
On the plus side, volumes had reduced at Graham & Parks Elementary School and on the stretch of Garden Street beyond Huron Avenue, where separated bike lanes end. A one-way street also made for safer pedestrian conditions, which was celebrated by seniors and families.
Surprise policy order
Late one Thursday evening this past December, a full two years later, a new policy order appeared on the council agenda mandating that Garden Street be made two-way, at the expense of every single parking and pullover space on the half-mile stretch of road. It came as a total surprise to anyone who had not been in on its planning – public comments were already stacked by supporters – and would be voted on a mere three days later at the next council meeting. No notice whatsoever was given to the thousands of people it would affect. Toner and his co-sponsors (Patty Nolan, Ayesha Wilson and Cathie Zusy) simply asserted that no one liked the existing design and that they knew better.
Expert affirm
Before a final vote to approve the new plan, the council had a four-month reprieve to learn more. In this period, the Transportation Department produced yet another study (March 23) evaluating the two-way plan, alongside the existing. Yet again transportation commissioner Brooke McKenna attested that “the existing configuration is safer and leads to less congestion.”
In that period, with the help of many others, we gathered 700 signatures of Cambridge residents, mostly living in the vicinity of the project, who preferred to keep the street the way we helped plan it. We wrote hundreds of letters to the council, imploring them to hear us. We offered meetings with councillors to make sure that we were acknowledged. Mayor E. Denise Simmons and councillor Wilson, who ultimately voted to change the design, did not respond to us.
The choice they made to turn this into an up-or-down political vote with no dialogue, no expert influence heeded, has pitted neighbor against neighbor and will result in a less safe, more congested, more expensive roadway, with no parking to boot. And the irony is that no evidence points to the two-way design as a solution for any stated problem. Our leaders should be guided by expertise and facts, not anecdotal observations or political appeasement.
What could have been different?
Why was this order designed to favor one constituency so heavily above all others? No councillor bothered to convene meetings to hear other perspectives. In the days leading up to the vote, my neighbors and I did meet with people on the other side. We did work to find common ground and understand each other’s concerns. We agreed on many of the issues, and though we did not yet agree on a solution, we did want all of our streets to be safer. We informed councillors of the dialogue we had begun to bring our neighborhood back together. The rush to a vote negated that effort.
In their final discussion, councillors who voted for the new design talked about the need to figure out where Garden Street residents would park, in spite of the Transportation Department indicating they couldn’t have it both ways. They talked about the need for thoughtful, holistic planning, then chose their own opinions over working with the community. We all lose in situations such as this. This is not how decisions should be made in Cambridge.
Ronald Axelrod, Maggie Baratz and Sarah Block
Ronald Axelrod is a retired architect with five decades of experience working on transportation-related projects. Maggie Baratz and Sarah Block are organizers of the Keep Garden Street As-Is petition. All live on streets abutting Garden Street.
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.
Paul Toner, Patty Nolan, and others ignored expert advice and the concerns of many residents. Now, the city is wasting money on a project that makes the street worse. It appears this was done to score political points.
This is not public service; it is self-serving. I expected better from Cambridge.
Voters should remember this. We need councilors who serve the greater good, not those who pander to a vocal minority for personal gain.
5 council members have ignored overwhelming public testimony in favor of keeping the existing one-way design, ignored the traffic department expertise in favor of keeping the existing one-way design, and instead chose to waste $150k of our money to make traffic and safety worse. Please remember this when you vote and rank the candidates in November. And if you want real street safety for all (not just for cyclists, but for everyone), join the mailing list for https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/ – we want Cambridge to have a vision for roads that is better than “slowly moving expensive traffic jam” these 5 council members vote for again and again.
It’s funny how choosing a story’s starting date can slant our perspective. The authors wonder why Councillors decided to change Garden from one-way to two-way for cars, and assert this was done without community input. But they ignore the two years of steady community input on the impact of the 2022 change.
The real problem with community input was not during 2024-25, it was in 2022. The initial series of community meetings, before the shift to one-way, were not publicized appropriately. They were described as “Garden Street Safety Improvement”. So very few residents of streets nearby Garden were told that Garden would be shifted, and that their streets would be impacted.
The impacts have been severe on streets near Garden–no surprise–we shut down one of our largest traffic arteries. Hundreds of people have expressed this to City Council. Councillors Toner, Nolan and others were responding to their constituents as they should have. The authors seem to keep forgetting this
This is an excellent letter. Thank you.
@Peter Glick, that is incorrect. There were at least 3 public meetings about garden street redesign, each vertical pole along the street had a poster about it. I personally with other safe street volunteers knocked on every door along the street and one block around. We have had plenty of discussion and the division is not about having more information. It is driving a car vs not driving. By the way, I don’t remember even a single public meeting about any other public topic Why are bike lanes “controversial”? Because these city council 5 made them. In November we can ameliorate this and make safe streets an obvious vision for Cambridge.
Over 700 people have publicly supported keeping Garden St as it is—that’s a matter of public record. Toner and Nolan claim they’ve heard from “500 people” who want changes, but there’s no public record of this—just their word, which is suspicious.
These five council members have repeatedly voted against expert advice and the majority’s will to appease a small, vocal, and wealthier minority. This is political maneuvering.
Toner, Nolan, and others need to stop playing politics with public safety. Streets are dangerous, and safety should be the top priority.
Patty Nolan once praised bike lanes in her own neighborhood for keeping her child safe. Apparently, the safety of kids in other neighborhoods matters less than re-election.
But this isn’t just about bike lanes—changing Garden St will make it less safe and more inconvenient for everyone.
“What should be a question left to traffic engineers trained in the complexity of road safety and network design was snatched by a political body for political ends”
Yep, that exactly characterizes the CSO.
And it certainly “has pitted neighbor against neighbor ” ever since.
@kdolan. The CSO is based on well-researched principles of street and bike lane safety. It will prevent accidents and save lives—there’s no doubt about that.
What truly pits neighbors against each other are those who put their own convenience above others’ safety.
@bahmutov–You assert my post is incorrect, but your post does not contradict my post. I agree there were 3 meetings, and that these meetings were widely publicized in advance. The problem with the meetings was that the advance publicity was billed as “Garden Street Safety Improvement”. So most people thought there was nothing controversial to discuss.
Had the meetings been billed as “Should Garden Street Switch to One-Way?” then there would have been good (not just wide) advance notice, and the hundreds of people who showed their disapproval after the change to one-way could have expressed themselves before the change.
Sadly, it appears that the “experts” on city staff have never had any interest in the concerns of people who have seen their side streets inundated with traffic that has been diverted from the much larger Garden Street. This is why many of us do not consider their “expert” opinions to be based on expertise
There are two telling details in how Councilors approached this vote. Councilor Zusy was adamant that any change somehow addressed the issue of parking, especially around the multi-unit building at 52 Garden St. She justified her vote for Option 4 in spite of that on some vague idea that Harvard would relinquish some space on the east side of the street that would allow for adding parking and a pullout and maybe raising the bike lane to sidewalk level. This despite the brick wall, mature trees, huge expense, and lack of any input from planners.
Councilor Nolan addressed concerns about traffic increases on Garden St. beyond Huron Ave. by claiming that it could be fixed by adding a 2-way bike lane in that section. This, knowing that the street isn’t wide enough, and her solution would require either 1-way car traffic or removal of all parking. That said, if this is her plan, where’s her PO to get this implemented?
Both were at best naive, but more likely misleading rationalizations.
Public polling, testimony, and voting consistently show strong support for street safety improvements, which experts also endorse.
Yet, these five councilors have repeatedly voted against both public opinion and expert guidance, siding instead with a small group of wealthy business and property owners.
Their political calculations put their own careers above public safety and the community’s wishes.
As a result, we face less safety, more congestion, and reduced parking.
Soon, there will likely be calls to remove bike lanes on Garden St. to restore parking.
Can we trust these councilors to prioritize safety? I wouldn’t count on it.
I still don’t understand why the city needs so many bike lanes and what did we do before they were installed? How can we accommodate all the traffic that is in the city now and has anyone measured car traffic in that area vs. bike traffic? I hope the city will respond to my query…thanks.
@Pamelamay7 we need a system of safe bike lanes so we can lower car traffic and safely get around without cars. Before this bike lanes were installed people got killed when they risked their lives cycling. We also need the bike lanes because we must move away from cars due to the climate crisis. Luckily safe bike lanes plus public transportation plus walking can make our life’s better than being stuck in constant car gridlock.
We need bike lanes for the same reason cars have airbags and seatbelts: to reduce injuries and save lives.
Before bike lanes, accidents and injuries were more common—just like cars before airbags and seatbelts.
Want to manage traffic? Build more bike lanes. Every cyclist is one less car on the road, and bike lanes have been proven to reduce traffic.
@AveJoe “ The CSO is based on well-researched principles of street and bike lane safety. It will prevent accidents and save lives—there’s no doubt about that.”
Except two people died last summer using these exact CSO prescribed bike lanes.
Which casts a LOT of doubt
@kdolan anecdotes and isolated incidents don’t negate actual research.
Besides, the people killed last summer were killed in intersections, not in the bike lanes.
@cwec Surely you are not implying that two deaths in one year using our bike lanes are “anecdotal”.
The CSO only prescribes infrastructure changes to the roadway segments. It requires nothing for intersections, where the majority of accidents occur.
@avgjoe
A public records request has been sent in for the mythical emails Nolan and Toner claim they got. Both were cc’d – crickets crickets crickets
hmmm seems like the 500 emails may not exist, may have only been from a few people or may not have been focused on returning Garden to 2 way but instead on mitigating things like extra traffic on Raymond – which the 5 councilors who voted for the change also voted against
I definitely feel much safer on the protected bike lanes than the unprotected bike lanes, and research supports this:
https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2025/04/2025-0130%20Bike%20Lane%20Crash%20Analysis_0.pdf
“Following the installation of separated bike lanes, pedestrian crashes decreased by 68%, bike crashes by 57%, and motor vehicle crashes by 29%.”
Another source:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140518301488?via%3Dihub/
“Better safety outcomes are instead associated with a greater prevalence of bike facilities – particularly protected and separated bike facilities”
@kdolan A federal study found that Cambridge bike lanes reduced accidents by 50%. Multiple studies show bike lanes improve safety for everyone—cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers.
The data speaks for itself.
@ Avgjoe
Would you provide the link to that federal study. I wasn’t aware that there was such a study. Thank you.
I’m not sure which federal study was referenced, but it’s easy to find evidence that bike lanes reduce accidents—including in Cambridge.
A recent federal study found that bike lanes decrease crashes: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf
The City of Cambridge reported a 67% drop in serious-injury crashes since installing separated bike lanes. The percentage of crashes resulting in serious injuries fell from 50.3% (2004–2012) to 4.5% (2015–2022): http://rwinters.com/council/061024M6-CSOreport.pdf
A 2015 study concluded:
1. Separated bike lanes attract more cyclists, easing road congestion.
2. Separated bike lanes improve safety for everyone, including drivers. https://www.mass.gov/lists/separated-bike-lane-planning-design-guide
There is ample evidence that bike lanes benefit all road users.
As a senior who regularly crosses Garden St, I feel much safer with the current design—including the bike lanes—even though I don’t bike.
I agree with the sentiment that the changes on Garden St must have been politically motivated. It makes no sense for the city to spend money to reduce parking and make the street worse. I have felt much safer with the new Garden St design
One has to wonder whether Paul Toner is doing this to score points with some voters and save his career. Lives are more important than politics, Mr. Toner.
@ Jerry Noice,
I asked Avejoe to provide the link to the federal study that bike lanes reduced accidents in Cambridge by 50%. I’ll look forward to reading the study.
@concerned43 – this link to the Bike Lane one pager also links to multiple studies showing that protected bicycle lanes are safer.
“Converting traditional or flush buffered bicycle lanes to a separated bicycle lane with flexible delineator posts can reduce crashes up to:
53%”
https://highways.dot.gov/media/19726
It’s a great reference overall for the types of safety changes the Cambridge transportation department has been implementing to also improve pedestrian safety and driver safety.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures
The reasons Garden will be less safe are described in the studies from our own transportation engineers linked in the article above, but basically boil down to adding more cars & conflict points will decrease safety, especially for people crossing. The longer light cycles at the places with traffic lights will increase wait times and congestion for all road users.
@Sarah Thanks for those links. It’s clear that bike lanes reduce bike accidents.
They also make streets safer for pedestrians. Multiple studies show protected bike lanes cut pedestrian injury rates by up to 52% (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.03.004).
Streets with protected bike lanes typically see a 40% reduction in injury crashes for all road users, sometimes over 50%.
I’ve felt much safer crossing Garden St since the redesign. This vote to revert to two-way traffic makes no sense—except for politics.
It is pretty cynical to gamble with people’s safety to win votes.
@Sarah
Thanks for the links. I had already seen some of them.
Avejoe said that “A federal study found that Cambridge bike lanes reduced accidents by 50%.”
I’m interested to see what that specific study says.
Do you have that link? Would Avejoe post the link he referred to? It would be good to see what the study says about bike lanes in Cambridge.
@concerned43 – I believe this is the study that everyone reference with the 50% number – it’s referenced in the abstract.
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-078.pdf
“The resulting CMFs ranged from 0.28 to 0.60; however, the condition of converting a traditional bicycle lane to an SBL that uses flexible posts (known as flexible posts) had a rounded CMF value of 0.50. This outcome suggests that this SBL treatment can reduce crashes by 50 percent. ”
crash modification factors (CMFs)
Garden street issues were not necessarily about the type of separated lanes but pedestrian safety – crossing – it’s trickier to cross agains 2 bike lanes and 2 traffic lanes, the longer light signal cycle that will increase congestion at the traffic lights, and the increase in the number of conflict points.
Let me know if this is the study you were looking for.