Garden Street in Cambridge’s Neighborhood 9 as bike lanes are installed in November 2022. Credit: Marc Levy
Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.
The game of Garden Street ping pong going on in the name of safety improvement seems to have become more about personal feelings. A recent article in Cambridge Day included a public comment at the last City Council meeting — the one where Councillors Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler and Ayah Al-Zubi put forward a policy order to keep Garden Street a one-way street for motor-vehicle traffic with two separate bike lanes —lamented, “I can’t even get out of my driveway after 4:00 p.m. We now live in a city that is being controlled by one faction, and that is not fair.” I have a fairly good idea as to who that “one faction” refers to but I also have a driveway on Avon Hill and I get frustrated, too. But it’s not about us versus them, a sentiment that now symbolizes the Garden Street project.
Our current divide is an unintended side effect of a 2025 policy order initiated by then-Councillor Paul Toner and Councillor Patty Nolan to return Garden Street to two-way motor-vehicle traffic. That got off to a shining start when The Council tasked the city’s Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department (TPTD) to provide design options that would maintain separated bike lanes while restoring two-way motor-vehicle traffic, and it came up with four choices. The council chose Option 4, which featured a bi-directional bike lane with two-way motor-vehicle traffic. Many hailed the do-all solution as a win-win, overlooking that TPTD recommended keeping the street one-way because it was the safest of the four options on the table.
Returning to two-way traffic will mean pedestrians have to cross multiple lanes of traffic across a wider and less calm roadway, car drivers will have to look for counterflow bike traffic that is atypical, Harvard students headed to the Quad will have to cross the entirety of Garden Street (assuming a south side implementation) to get to the northern campus parcel, and then there would be the five-point intersection at Huron and Sherman by the firehouse.
Still, Nolan continues to champion Option 4 as beneficial for all, citing fewer intersections and reduced traffic congestion. But the TPTD’s 2023 report on Garden Street concluded that Option 4 would present design challenges that would likely increase traffic cycle wait times and slow throughput. As the parent of a Cambridge Rindge and Latin School (CRLS) student, the lack of a fully scoped-out solution — details are ostensibly to be determined during implementation — concerns me. CRLS students bike Garden Street to athletic facilities at Danehy Park and other North Cambridge destinations (Thorndike Field and the courts and fields at RAUC). Option 4 would force them to traverse a five-way intersection to merge into (or fan out of) the bi-directional bike lane, adding in conflict points — not ideal by any safety measure.
Option 4 would also essentially eliminate all parking along the stretch of Garden Street from Huron to Concord, creating problems for residents with accessibility needs. Others in the neighborhood have also appreciated the calm that the 2022 shift to one-way traffic on Garden Street has brought. The narrowing of the roadway provides inherent traffic calming and makes crossing the street easier and safer. So much so, that in response to Nolan and Toner’s policy order, some 750 area residents who live within a few blocks signed a petition to keep Garden Street as is. That’s not “one faction” or “the all-powerful bike lobby” that the speaker implied, but a community of affected people coming together.
Then there’s the matter of money — an estimated $250K to put Garden Street back. Why spend that much money on something that is unlikely to achieve expectations? Councillor Nolan has rightfully flagged Sherman and lower Garden as areas of safety concern for our young people. Why not apply the funds there? Or how about we spend it to implement the side-street traffic mitigation measures TPTD outlined in that 2023 report? That might ease the frustration of that frustrated homeowner who can’t get out of their driveway.
The point is: Garden Street should not be the win-or-lose, right-or-wrong proposition it has become. The council should approve Sobrinho-Wheeler and Al-Zubi’s order and address neighborhood issues in a controlled, data-driven manner. Work with what is there. Make it better for all and give it a chance. If data and analysis show that the one-way plan fails, Option 4 is always on the table. But if we’re talking about an extra minute or two to head north from Harvard Square, an extra segment of your favorite true-crime podcast, isn’t that worth the safety of our children?
Tom Meek is a frequent contributor to Cambridge Day. Views expressed in this column are his own, as a resident of Neighborhood 9 and parent of a student at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School.
Like this:
LikeLoading...
Related Stories
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.
Tom Meek is a writer living in Cambridge. His reviews, essays, short stories and articles have appeared in The Boston Phoenix, The Rumpus, Thieves Jargon, Film Threat and Open Windows. Tom is a member...
More by Tom Meek
Don’t reverse on Garden Street, it could be a curse
Share this:
Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.
The game of Garden Street ping pong going on in the name of safety improvement seems to have become more about personal feelings. A recent article in Cambridge Day included a public comment at the last City Council meeting — the one where Councillors Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler and Ayah Al-Zubi put forward a policy order to keep Garden Street a one-way street for motor-vehicle traffic with two separate bike lanes —lamented, “I can’t even get out of my driveway after 4:00 p.m. We now live in a city that is being controlled by one faction, and that is not fair.” I have a fairly good idea as to who that “one faction” refers to but I also have a driveway on Avon Hill and I get frustrated, too. But it’s not about us versus them, a sentiment that now symbolizes the Garden Street project.
Our current divide is an unintended side effect of a 2025 policy order initiated by then-Councillor Paul Toner and Councillor Patty Nolan to return Garden Street to two-way motor-vehicle traffic. That got off to a shining start when The Council tasked the city’s Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department (TPTD) to provide design options that would maintain separated bike lanes while restoring two-way motor-vehicle traffic, and it came up with four choices. The council chose Option 4, which featured a bi-directional bike lane with two-way motor-vehicle traffic. Many hailed the do-all solution as a win-win, overlooking that TPTD recommended keeping the street one-way because it was the safest of the four options on the table.
Returning to two-way traffic will mean pedestrians have to cross multiple lanes of traffic across a wider and less calm roadway, car drivers will have to look for counterflow bike traffic that is atypical, Harvard students headed to the Quad will have to cross the entirety of Garden Street (assuming a south side implementation) to get to the northern campus parcel, and then there would be the five-point intersection at Huron and Sherman by the firehouse.
Still, Nolan continues to champion Option 4 as beneficial for all, citing fewer intersections and reduced traffic congestion. But the TPTD’s 2023 report on Garden Street concluded that Option 4 would present design challenges that would likely increase traffic cycle wait times and slow throughput. As the parent of a Cambridge Rindge and Latin School (CRLS) student, the lack of a fully scoped-out solution — details are ostensibly to be determined during implementation — concerns me. CRLS students bike Garden Street to athletic facilities at Danehy Park and other North Cambridge destinations (Thorndike Field and the courts and fields at RAUC). Option 4 would force them to traverse a five-way intersection to merge into (or fan out of) the bi-directional bike lane, adding in conflict points — not ideal by any safety measure.
Option 4 would also essentially eliminate all parking along the stretch of Garden Street from Huron to Concord, creating problems for residents with accessibility needs. Others in the neighborhood have also appreciated the calm that the 2022 shift to one-way traffic on Garden Street has brought. The narrowing of the roadway provides inherent traffic calming and makes crossing the street easier and safer. So much so, that in response to Nolan and Toner’s policy order, some 750 area residents who live within a few blocks signed a petition to keep Garden Street as is. That’s not “one faction” or “the all-powerful bike lobby” that the speaker implied, but a community of affected people coming together.
Then there’s the matter of money — an estimated $250K to put Garden Street back. Why spend that much money on something that is unlikely to achieve expectations? Councillor Nolan has rightfully flagged Sherman and lower Garden as areas of safety concern for our young people. Why not apply the funds there? Or how about we spend it to implement the side-street traffic mitigation measures TPTD outlined in that 2023 report? That might ease the frustration of that frustrated homeowner who can’t get out of their driveway.
The point is: Garden Street should not be the win-or-lose, right-or-wrong proposition it has become. The council should approve Sobrinho-Wheeler and Al-Zubi’s order and address neighborhood issues in a controlled, data-driven manner. Work with what is there. Make it better for all and give it a chance. If data and analysis show that the one-way plan fails, Option 4 is always on the table. But if we’re talking about an extra minute or two to head north from Harvard Square, an extra segment of your favorite true-crime podcast, isn’t that worth the safety of our children?
Tom Meek is a frequent contributor to Cambridge Day. Views expressed in this column are his own, as a resident of Neighborhood 9 and parent of a student at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School.
Like this:
Related Stories
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.
Tom Meek
Tom Meek is a writer living in Cambridge. His reviews, essays, short stories and articles have appeared in The Boston Phoenix, The Rumpus, Thieves Jargon, Film Threat and Open Windows. Tom is a member... More by Tom Meek