Cambridge was blocked Wednesday from work on the Alewife Linear Park Reconstruction Project by a temporary restraining order issued in state court. Residents asked for the order after noticing several trees had been cut down along the path early in the morning, the order says.
The city “is hereby ordered to desist and refrain from engaging in preparatory work, including healthy tree removal, for the project at issue” before a preliminary injunction hearing Aug. 25, according to the court order.
The order, intended to prevent “immediate and irreparable harm” to the park land, follows a lawsuit filed last week alleging that the project is in violation of multiple state and local environmental and land use laws. In a press release, suing residents said that the project is “negligent, is unsafe for pedestrians, will kill some or all of about 120 mature trees and is a waste of taxpayer money.”
The city is not planning to remove healthy, mature trees, and the court on Wednesday allowed for the removal of five unhealthy trees at the site to go ahead as scheduled.
“We are confident all required processes and procedures have been followed and stand by the plans for this project,” said Jeremy Warnick, a spokesperson for the city, in a statement to Cambridge Day. “We look forward to enhancing the park and more effectively supporting the needs and interests of our community.”
The tree work residents had noticed was done by a city contractor who was onsite to prune or remove the branches of several trees in preparation for the project, Warnick said. Official construction was not set to begin until early September.
The project, which covers the area of Linear Park between Russell Field and the Cambridge-Somerville city line, seeks to redesign and reconstruct a 35-year-old stretch of multiuse path and surrounding area. It is estimated to cost $7.2 million.
According to the project description on the city’s website, the project includes landscaping changes, additional seating and lighting installation and a new drainage system. Notably, the city seeks to expand the existing 10-foot path with one that is 14 feet wide wherever possible to accommodate more bikers and pedestrians. Some in the community argue that the path is actually becoming 18 feet wide with the pouring of impervious “stone dust” shoulders on each side.
“The goal of the project is to create a cohesive open space corridor that provides increased access for the community and improved opportunities for passive recreation and leisure, play, enjoyment of the landscape and a reliable transportation corridor for commuters and recreational park users,” the website says.
The lawsuit alleges that the creation of such a “transportation corridor” illegally repurposes protected parkland. First, it argues that the project violates the Massachusetts Open Space Act, which would require the city to get approval from the state Legislature before using public parkland for another purpose. It also refers to city zoning ordinances, which place the park in an “Open Space District,” in which “transportation, communication and utility uses” are forbidden.
The stated goal of creating a transportation corridor, especially by widening the path, represents a departure from these designated uses, the lawsuit suggests.
Were a pathway such as this one to be completed in a designated park, it would have far-reaching consequences, said Charles Teague, who lives near the park and is a lead plaintiff in the case. “Suddenly every park is up for grabs here,” he said. “This will define Cambridge and its parks for a hundred years.”
Two counts against the city also allege a lack of environmental consideration, noting that the construction may lead to loss of green space and additional hazards in a designated Environmental Justice Community. The city has not yet sought approval or review of the project from the state Department of Environmental Protection, which the lawsuit says is necessary given that part of the project area is under an activity and use limitation to prevent public exposure to hazardous substances.
Teague said that the lawsuit represented “city management versus the people.”
City claims that trees would not be removed as part of the project were misleading, he said, citing reports from the city’s Committee on Public Planting and an independent arborist that concluded that construction would threaten the root systems of mature trees and leave them vulnerable to disease or death. The city has a plan in place to protect trees that includes soil decompaction, air spading and ensuring that new utility lines are built under the path, with the goal of minimizing disruption to roots.
Plans to plant more than 100 new trees at the park fall short of making up for possible damage to existing, mature trees, Teague said. “Even if a sapling survives, it takes decades to grow up and provide cooling and the other environmental services, absorbing water and absorbing carbon” compared with a mature tree, he said.
“I just can’t believe that they’re doing this in what’s meant to be a green, environmental city,” he said.
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.
This is the best news Bono has seen in Cambridge in years, or possibly decades! Bravo for pushing back against this tyrannical, unelected administration and the tiny cabal of protected city employees who take pride in not listening to anybody but bicyclists, whether they live here or not. At the very first community meeting on the “redesign,” that many argued was not even necessary, then CDD project manager Cara Seiderman declared that the paved path would be “widened to 14 feet where feasible” and there would be no discussion allowed at all of this key element of the project. Now retired, Seiderman was a nationally recognized promoter of bicycle infrastructure. Her replacement doesn’t live in Cambridge but he told me he “rides his bike through the area.” Widening the paved surface endangers trees, does damage to an award-winning refuge from city noise and traffic, and will make it even easier for bicyclists – who are already allowed to go way too fast – to go even faster. Had enough??
This is shameful.
I’m sure the delay is temporary and hope the opponents of path improvement get tired of blocking park upgrades. The path is narrow, many people use it (bicyclists are people who deserve safe path too), and any damage to the tree is a made up problem.
The claims about this project killing countless trees have been debunked many times over. This lawsuit is yet another example of people abusing procedural & environmental safeguards in order to obstruct any change they personally disagree with. Teague also recently filed a baseless Open Meeting Law complaint to try and overturn the recent city council vote on the Westley Ave access point.
Disappointingly, the article (30% of which is “Teague said” without commentary) fails to mention that one of the plaintiffs (Aster) also led a lawsuit against the Cycling Safety Ordinance. This isn’t only about trees, as “Bono” illustrates quite nicely above. Another person (who has sued the city twice, once to stop the Inman Sq. redesign, then again to stop bike lanes) previously compared this modest path widening to the aborted Inner Belt highway expansion. This false equating of bikes with polluting vehicles 100x their weight & multiuse paths with roadways is reflected in Teague’s lawsuit as well.
This has been a transportation corridor since 1870, and a main east-west route for bikes since 1985. The fact that people are claiming this is now only a park and can’t be used for transportation seems bizarre; maybe it’s simply an excuse to obstruct the project?
I agree that it’s not great to mix bikes and pedestrians at high traffic volumes like we have on this path. Bikes have no speedometers and tasking police with slowing them down seems impractical and counterproductive. Best practice in places like the Netherlands is to have separate lanes for these two different traffic speeds. I’m unhappy this project is not doing that. I’m not sure lack of available width is a good reason not to do that given the narrow spaces through which Amsterdam manages to accomplish separation, though I do agree with the desire not to expand the pavement so much it obliterates all the green space.
How many times are we going to play this same game?
Project is proposed, project is discussed heavily in public comment, people overwhelmingly support the project, and then the detractors sue to try to get their unpopular way, or block in other ways.
It’s happening with housing, it’s happening with bike lanes, it’s happening with absolutely anything that offends the sensibilities of a select few Cantabrigians.
The arguments in the lawsuit are the exact same arguments first used in public comment against the project. They were found to be without merit, and the project approved. Now, we have to delay because of those same meritless arguments, costing the city time, money, and its residents a park and path without construction equipment.
Shameful.
Teague’s claim of a “tremendous environmental cost” over a few trees is absurd histrionics. It is just another disguised “stop the bike paths” ploy, as @picoplaff noted.
It’s unfortunate we can’t fix problems, make upgrades, and improve safety because a few selfish NIMBYs abuse the system to block what they dislike.
We are a community, and to act as one, we need to imagine that others may use a community resource differently than we do. We’re at the point where the linear park path is in pretty bad shape, presenting a safety hazard, particularly for the mobility impaired, people with strollers, runners, and bikers. The situation is even worse on Memorial Drive where needed pathway improvements between Harvard and the Eliot bridge are being held up because of similar concerns regarding mature trees.
Moving slowly on these projects has consequences. People can get hurt, conflict between users increase, or people just decide to not even bother at all.
I don’t know enough about this project to have a definitive opinion. However I do walk this path almost every day for about half an hour in the evening. I do think a clearly defined speed limit should be posted that would apply to both human and motor powered modes of transportation. Too many seem to think this is a velodrome rather than a shared use path.
This is shameless.
It’s been a bike path for decades, but now they call it a “bike superhighway” as if widening it a few feet changes anything, other than making it safer.
They claim to be protecting trees, but the project would add about 100 new ones. It would also repave the path for accessibility, add lighting, safety phones, benches, and playground equipment.
All of that blocked by the selfish actions of a few people.
Can’t believe a few grumpy folks have to ruin park improvements for everyone else, especially those of us who use this route to commute to work on our bikes. Can’t have anything nice without someone complaining about any type of change.
These people should be on the hook for the added costs to the city that these needless delays incur.