Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

July 31, 2010

Aug 2, 2010 (Midsummer) City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:16 pm

Aug 2, 2010 (Midsummer) City Council Agenda Highlights

   The one and only City Council meeting of the summer takes place this Monday (Aug 2). As is often the case at the annual Midsummer meeting, the agenda features plenty of death resolutions (21) and congratulations (44) for a total of 82 Resolutions and 32 Orders plus 7 Committee Reports and 38 items on the City Manager’s Agenda. There are plenty of noteworthy items on this Agenda, so let’s get started.

   One potentially controversial (and politically juicy) item is a proposal from the City Manager (Manager’s Agenda #36) to raise the annual resident parking permit fee from $8 to $20 for 2011-12 and $25 for 2013 and beyond. As the Manager notes, the annual fee has been fixed by ordinance at $8 since 1992 (18 years) and was $4 per year from the mid-1970s until then. The proposed increase is quite modest when considered in terms of inflation and should be able to garner the necessary 5 votes to pass. By having the Manager propose the increase, the councillors can simply acquiesce with few, if any, political consequences.

   It’s worth noting that there’s also a communication from a group called the "Livable Streets Alliance" that loosely uses the term "sustainability" to propose that the permit fee should instead be increased to "$50 for the first vehicle, $150 for the 2nd vehicle, and so on." They would also have additional surcharges in some areas. This same group adamantly supports installing a "cycle track" on Western Avenue and reducing the number of lanes on the Longfellow Bridge to one lane in each direction. Thankfully, the City Manager has a better grasp of common sense and political feasibility. Needless to say, a parked car produces no greenhouse gases and does not contribute to global warming. A motor vehicle is not inherently an evil thing. They’re great for getting to the Blue Hills on weekends to enjoy the great outdoors.

   The City Manager was also quite busy in responding to City Council requests for information. The agenda features 20 responses out of 36 pending requests, including a report on "what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers." That’s Manager’s Agenda #27.

   Perhaps the most significant business items on the Council agenda are three pending zoning petitions all of which are due to expire in early August. These are items #5, #6, and #7 in Unfinished Business. The Green Building/Zoning Task Force proposal (#6) will likely pass without objection, and the Boston Properties petition (#7) relating to the Kendall Square MXD District and the Broad Institute will also likely pass now that the necessary "mitigation" commitments have been extracted from the proponents. [Details in Committee Report #6 and Committee Report #7.]

   The City Council Orders should provide for plenty of speechmaking, controversy, and comedy. Here’s a sampler:

The Rain Orders:

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report to the City Council on what safety plans exist to contain a city-wide disaster or to mitigate the impact on Cambridge of natural or man-made disasters occurring elsewhere in the United States or abroad.   Councillor Simmons

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate departments to investigate the problems that the heavy rains have caused the city and report to the City Council appropriate remedies.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Councillor Cheung

Order #13. That the City Manager report back to the City Council on summer rains and flooding, neighborhood stormwater systems and the proposed Wetlands Protection Ordinance.   Councillor Kelley

   It was, of course, inevitable that there would be a flood of City Council Orders in the wake of the recent rains. The damages sustained by some are a reminder that with homeownership comes certain risks and responsibilities, including the risk of water flowing into a basement or up through basement walls and floors. This is why people buy insurance, keep rainy day funds in the bank, and undertake preventive maintenance. Nobody wishes storm damage on anyone, but it is ridiculous when some people blame the City or demand restitution from the City for damage suffered from a freak storm. Perhaps we would all be well-advised to keep a few sandbags handy for any ground-level or below-grade entries to our property.

The City Website Orders:

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the IT Department to present a plan within 2 months time for addressing an alternative Common Ground Web Content Management System to all departments currently approved to manage their own web pages.   Councillor Simmons

Order #22. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Information Technology to arrange for a portion of the website to be dedicated to information for college students and development of a flyer that advertises the website.   Councillor Cheung

   Though pretty good compared to a lot of other cities (some neighboring cities actually contract out their web design and maintenance with out-of-state vendors), there is definitely room for improvement on Cambridge’s website. Perhaps the greatest problem is that many departments don’t have the internal talent to maintain their local sites. For example, I recently spent a good deal of time trying to get a more current listing of all the City boards and commissions. Some departments were completely up to date and some even sent me the information without having to ask. On the other hand, there are entities such as the "Kids Council" which hasn’t updated anything in ages, and when I requested the information from Executive Director Mary Wong, all she did was blame others for her inactivity. In an ideal world, every division in every City department should have the in-house expertise to maintain and make the best use of their web page(s). Alternatively, the City should install a simple-to-use content management system so that existing staff can take care of their page(s) without having to go running to the City webmaster for every little task. In the case of the Kids Council, the system should be simple enough for a 4-year-old to manage.

The "Story That Will Not Die" Order:

Order #12. That the Mayor is requested to convene a special meeting of the City Council in September 2010 to review the findings of the Cambridge Review Commission.   Councillor Kelley and Councillor Reeves

   This is the anticlimactic and overly expensive report that grew out of "The World-Shaking and Unforgettable Gates-Crowley Event" from last summer. Old news, but very handy for political campaigning or for selling books if your last name is Ogletree.

The Leland Cheung "Get Out the Vote" Orders:

Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Election Commission to develop a bi-annual program (once during fall semester, once in spring) that would allow Election Commissioners and staff to visit every student dorm in Cambridge to educate students on their voting rights and encourage them to participate in local government and state elections.   Councillor Cheung

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Executive Director of the Election Commission to produce a one page flyer that will be distributed to the universities via PDF that will provide voter information, summary of how we elect our local government officials and a fact sheet answering common questions about what reregistering in Massachusetts entails.   Councillor Cheung

   These Orders are all great and wonderful, but you certainly shouldn’t fault any of the other 8 city councillors for raising an eyebrow or two at Leland Cheung’s initiative to increase voter turnout in the demographic group that has and will again most likely benefit him in future elections. Perhaps Tim Toomey should advocate for a similar initiative among East Cambridge residents.

The "If the State Won’t Do It, We Will" Order:

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads to draft our own station plan for the relocated Lechmere Station and to work with the East Cambridge community and neighborhood groups to advocate for the inclusion of Cambridge needs in the final MassDOT green line extension plan.   Councillor Cheung

   The Order is self-explanatory, but the basic notion here is that if a good all-around plan for Lechmere is put under the noses of state transportation planners, they might actually like it and act on it. That may be a better option than waiting for transportation planners to spend years on an inadequate plan that may not be favored by residents or other interested parties.

The "We Don’t Trust the Cambridge Health Alliance" Orders:

Order #27. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide this City Council with appropriate notice of considerations, conversations and discussions he and his senior staff have regarding the City’s primary health institution.   Councillor Decker, Councillor Cheung and Councillor Reeves

Order #28. That the City Manager is requested to report no less than quarterly to the City Council about the conversations that have taken place about the Cambridge Health Alliance relative to service charges and other matters that impact our community.   Councillor Decker and Councillor Cheung

   I’ll let the councillors hash this one out, but it should be obvious to anyone who has been following the news that the Cambridge Health Alliance and other health care providers that were previously dependent on federal reimbursements and the state’s Free Care Pool have been struggling in the new world of mandatory health insurance and greater freedom in the choice of health care providers. Some councillors have railed against Cambridge Health Alliance officials for necessary cutbacks, but economic survival is a serious matter and elected officials should not be so quick to brush these concerns aside.
Related Story: Cambridge Health Alliance seeks buyer or partner (Boston Globe, Aug 13, 2010)

The "40B or not 40B, That is the Question" Order:

Order #29. That this City Council go on record urging its residents to vote no on 2 to preserve the affordable housing law.   Councillor Decker and Councillor Cheung

   This Order will likely pass 9-0, but it’s worth noting that Chapter 40B has often been abused by developers who threaten to build a 40B project as a means of ramming through other projects. Ideally, there should be a compromise that maintains the good aspects of this law but which limits the ability of developers to use it as a blunt instrument to leverage other large projects.

The "I Saw It On YouTube" Order:

Order #32. That the City Manager is requested to investigate with the MBTA the possibility of installing a long flat tube slide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4o0ZVeixYU) at a Cambridge MBTA station to add a bit of personality to a subway stop.   Vice Mayor Davis

   Have fun, boys and girls, and watch the video. – RW

June 22, 2010

Comments on Cambridge’s Western Avenue project

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,planning — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 12:01 pm

This post contributed by John S. Allen

Note as of May 20, 2015: The document linked in the paragraph below is no longer on the City’s Web site. It has been retrieved from the Internet Archive.

Western Avenue is a major one-way arterial street, a truck and and bus route, the only direct route from the Central Square of Cambridge to Allston, Brighton and other points west. Western Avenue presently needs full-depth reconstruction, which also provides the opportunity to reconstruct sewers. The City of Cambridge has recently posted conceptual drawings showing three ways to reconstruct Western Avenue. These and additional information are posted on the City’s Web site.

View Google Map

Western Avenue is lined with typical Boston-area “three-decker” apartment buildings for most of its length. These date back to the early decades of the 20th Century. There are a few businesses as well. Between Pleasant Street and Memorial Drive, Western Avenue presently has two travel lanes, with parallel parking on both sides, except at bus stops and at the right turn lane before Memorial Drive. There is a bike lane for part of the way.

The construction of a Massachusetts Turnpike extension interchange just across the Charles River in Allston in the mid-1960s led to an increase in traffic on Western Avenue and on River Street, which carries traffic in the opposite direction. The much-despised Inner Belt limited-access highway – Cambridge’s equivalent of Boston’s Central Artery – was never built. Governor Francis Sargent vetoed its construction in 1971. It would have diverted traffic from Western Avenue, but it would have split Cambridge in half, just as the old Central Artery separated downtown Boston from the waterfront.

Western Avenue and River Street join at Central Square in Cambridge, but they diverge from each other toward the river. They do not form a convenient one-way pair for short trips.

Western Avenue presents a difficult problem of accommodating all interests, as an arterial lined with residences. Accommodating through traffic including trucks and buses conflicts with the interest of residents in safe walking conditions, in peace and quiet, and in on-street parking.

I am writing this to comment on three conceptual drawings which Robert Winters has sent me. These were posted on a Cambridgeport neighborhood e-mail list. I’ll make my own suggestions after discussing them.

Concept 1

Western Avenue, Concept 1

Western Avenue, Concept 1

Note as of May 20, 2015: The 2010 Cambridge Bike Trends report has been moved from its original location to a different location on the City’s Web site.

Concept 1 is the most conservative. It keeps the two travel lanes but has a bike lane and bulbouts on the right side. This design would presumably somewhat increase the appeal of the street to young and timid bicyclists. However, the bike lane, like most bike lanes in Cambridge, is in the door zone of parked cars. Cambridge’s recent report on bicycle trends showed that doorings amounted to 20% of all reported car-bicycle crashes, the highest percentage I have seen anywhere. Bicycle facilities that encourage riding in the “door zone” do nothing to resolve this problem and probably increase it. Educating cyclists to avoid riding in the “door zone” becomes more difficult when bicycle facilities direct cyclists to ride there.

Due to the total width’s being unchanged in the Concept 1 proposal, Western Avenue would remain suitable for longer-distance through bicycle travel at normal speeds for adults who make regular use of a bicycle. Shorter-distance neighborhood bicycling would not be encouraged because, as mentioned, Western Avenue is one-way and River Street does not make a convenient two-way pair with it for shorter trips.

The drawing shows a bus shelter. A bus shelter is nice in wet weather, but this one is shown on a long bulbout (at sidewalk level) in the no-parking zone currently occupied by the bus stop. With this arrangement, buses will have to stop in the right-hand travel lane and bike lane, blocking them.

The bulbout on the right side of the street shortens crossing distances for pedestrians – but the drawing shows no bulbout on the left side of the street, where there is parallel parking but no bus stop. Why not? At bus stops, there could be bulbouts on the left side only, resulting in the same crossing distance but still allowing buses to pull to the right and avoid blocking other traffic.

All in all: Concept 1 would only improve conditions for pedestrians and for people waiting for buses, and clear the way ahead of buses by blocking other traffic. Conditions would worsen for other motorists and for bicyclists.

Concept 3

Western Avenue, Concept 3

Western Avenue, Concept 3

Concept 3 shows a so-called “cycle track” – a bicycle path – at the right side of the street, located behind the bus shelter and parked cars. I use the quotes because the term “cycle track” has been used to describe various types of facilities. All they have in common is that they parallel roadways like sidewalks.

The “cycle track” would be fitted in by narrowing the travel lanes and eliminating the bike lane on the street. The drawing does not show whether the “cycle track” would be intended for one-way travel or for two-way travel. Two-way travel would occur in any case, because many bicyclists would perceive the “cycle track” as a safe facility, separate from motor-vehicle traffic.

Research on bicycle paths adjacent to streets in Germany, Sweden, Finland, the USA and Canada has shown alarming increases in crash rates above those for riding in the street, due to increased conflict with motor traffic at intersections and to conflicts with pedestrians and other bicyclists everywhere. These results have been confirmed in a recent study in Copenhagen. There are exceptions when the paths are very carefully engineered, with traffic signals to prevent conflicts and with adequate width, but this one does not meet those requirements. The “cycle track” as shown would be partially in the door zone on the right side of motor vehicles, and would be crossed frequently by motorists making turns into and out of side streets — with sight distance problems due to the parked cars; also by pedestrians getting in and out of cars, going to and from bus shelters and preparing to cross Western Avenue. People on inline skates and skateboards, and pedestrians overflowing the sidewalk, would also use the “cycle track.”

One effect of Concept 3 would be to discourage longer-distance through bicycle travel, and to encourage shorter-distance, low-speed bicycle travel by children and novice cyclists. This encouragement would be purchased at the expense of a higher construction cost, more crashes, increased congestion of motor traffic, and making future reconfiguration expensive. Also, it is very difficult to keep a “cycle track” at sidewalk level clear of snow and ice though winter; probably only a single sidewalk width would be plowed, as with the existing “cycle tracks” on Vassar Street; plowed snow would melt back onto the surface and refreeze. Transitions from street level to the “cycle track” typically also are difficult to keep clear of ice and plowed snow.

The bus stop in Concept 3 is just like that in Concept 1, but the travel lanes are narrower, making it even more difficult for other traffic to overtake stopped buses. Placing a cycle track behind a bus stop was shown in the recent Copenhagen study to lead to an increase of 17 times in bicycle-pedestrian crashes, and 19 times in injuries.

Concept 3 is at the very least ineligible for Commonwealth funding, and probably unlawful, because required signage would not comply with the Massachusetts Project Development and Design Guide. A procedure does exist through the Federal Highway Administration to legalize projects that are not within design standards, and to exempt non-standard treatments from liability. The procedure defines new treatments as experimental, and requires that research data be collected, so that non-standard designs may serve to direct the standards-setting process. That is very desirable outcome from the installation of non-standard treatments, of which Cambridge has not taken advantage despite its having installed a number of such treatments.

Concept 5

Western Avenue, Concept 5

Western Avenue, Concept 5

Concept 5 shows Western Avenue with a bike lane, only one so-called “car lane” and back-in angle parking on the left side. Vehicles would have to stop and back up to enter the parking spaces. The bike lane would not be in the “door zone”, because all the parking would be on the other side of the street, but buses would block the bike lane and the one general-purpose lane. Truckers making deliveries would block it for extended periods of time, as trucks would not fit into the back-in parking spaces. Other vehicles might just be able to squeeze by, it’s not clear, but even so, a reduction from two lanes to one would result in gridlock, absent a Cambridge Big Dig to divert traffic.

General comments

What happened to concepts 2 and 4? What did they show? Or does the City just like odd numbers?

I have put the term “car lane” in quotes. There is no such thing as a “car lane”, and it is odd for the City to use this term. Cars are not the only vehicles — there are also trucks, buses, motorcycles, motor scooters, bicycles, and yet others. All may use these lanes under Massachusetts law. However, narrowing the roadway and creating a separate bikeway, as in Concept 3, will recruit motorist animosity to chase bicyclists off the road.

The conceptual drawings are notable for what they do not show. They are far from a complete plan. Though there is some technical data on existing conditions in other documents which the City has provided, there is no analysis of traffic capacity and volumes or signal timing to go with the different concepts. Good decisions about street layout can not be made without this information.

It is clear, however, that all three options for Western Avenue would increase congestion, due to the placement of the bus stops. Option 3 would increase congestion further due to conflicts between cyclists and turning motorists. Option 5 would create congestion all day long.

Transportation reformers like to point out that building road capacity results in an increase in traffic. In practice, if demand exceeds road capacity, traffic does indeed increase — until congestion prevents it from increasing further. An increase in capacity may lead to development and make longer trips convenient. Cambridge is already a built-up area, and development has occurred elsewhere as the Turnpike has encouraged commuting to/from distant suburbs.

Western Avenue can’t comfortably accommodate all current uses. Reducing its capacity, as in the proposed concepts, isn’t going to solve its problems. Only draconian measures – extreme taxation of motor vehicles and motor fuel; a major build-out of public transportation to serve suburban commuters; removal of on-street parking from one side of Western Avenue, and/or a Cambridge Big Dig to provide an alternative route – would relieve Western Avenue of the competing pressures that have resulted in its intractable problems.

Removing parking on one side of Western Avenue would allow a contraflow bikeway behind a median barrier, so the street would be two-way again for bicycle trips. University Avenue, in Madison, Wisconsin, offers an example of such a treatment. I don’t think it would be as successful on Western Avenue, though, because University Avenue is much wider, making room for an ample with-flow bike lane and discouraging wrong-way travel in the contraflow bikeway. Another possibility if parking were removed on one side would be a bus/bike lane — but this would have to be policed with license-plate cameras, or else Massachusetts motorists would ignore it.

What can be done until/unless political will builds to make the needed changes?

If Western Avenue is to remain one-way, then the bus turnouts should remain. Bicycle accommodation on the left side of one-way roadways is not a new idea; it is common in New York City and has been used recently on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. It might make sense here, and would avoid conflicts with buses. But then there is the issue of transition from/to the right side, and especially to get to the right of left-turning traffic before Memorial Drive and the Western Avenue Bridge. Traffic-signal timing and special (experimental) bicycle signals in the block before Putnam Avenue could ease the transition back to the right. A bike lane on the left side would still most likely be in the door zone, though there would be fewer door openings.

The simplest improvements, and those which can be done now, would be to leave Western Avenue with two travel lanes but to place shared-lane markings in the right lane and bulbouts only at the left side if there is a bus stop on the right. Strict speed-limit enforcement would be helpful, too. In the last block between Putnam Avenue and Memorial Drive, it would be helpful to remove parking entirely on the right side, so as to relieve congestion caused by the large volume of traffic turning from Putnam Avenue and the long red on the traffic signal at Memorial Drive. Perhaps the removed parking can be accommodated off-street, so as not to decrease the number of parking spaces, which are held sacred by business owners and residents. There appears to be space for parking around the city-owned generating plant in the last block before Memorial Drive. Synchronization of traffic signals also would be very helpful, as well as strict speed enforcement and a lower speed limit. These might be enforced by means of license-plate cameras if the objection to them as an intrusion on privacy can be overcome. Since when is speeding on a public way a private matter?

Comments on presentations

Now, some comments on presentations and meeting summaries from the task force studying Western Avenue:

Note, as of May 20, 2015: all three of the documents linked in this section are no longer online, or possibly have moved to different addresses. The versions now linked have been retrieved from the Internet Archive.

The April 15, 2010 presentation most addresses design goals: Notes on this presentation are also online.

“Pedestrian safety a main concern.” The cycle track option will decidedly worsen pedestrian safety.

“Design goals: safe, efficient pleasant” Choose any two as long as one of them isn’t “efficient”. All three of the proposed concepts would reduce efficiency.

Page 47 (page 8 of PDF): shows narrowed travel lanes and cycle tracks on a street that extends to the vanishing point in the background without any cross traffic or parking. The apparent goal of narrowing the travel lanes is to reduce travel speed and make the sidewalks more pleasant for pedestrians, though it’s unclear just where pedestrians would be going on this endless street without destinations. On a street with cross traffic and multiple, conflicting uses, narrowing the traveled way results in seriously decreased efficiency. Reduction in speed is best achieved by rigid enforcement, rather than by reducing efficiency.

Page 10 of PDF, lower left: shows a bus blocking the bike lane, because a bulbout has been placed at the bus stop, exactly what will happened with Concepts 1 and 3 for Western Avenue.

Page 11 of PDF: shows 3 different kinds of inconsistent and nonstandard markings for speed humps and speed tables.

Some notes on the public meeting summary from March 31, 2010:

goal #22, page 6 of PDF:

“Undertake reasonable measures to improve the functioning of the city’s street network, without increasing through capacity, to reduce congestion and noise and facilitate bus and other non-automobile circulation.”

Not achieved, all of the concepts increase congestion. Concept 3 produces gridlock.

Goal 23, page 6 of PDF:

“Encourage all reasonable forms of nonautomotive travel including, for example, making improvements to the city’s infrastructure to support bicycling and walking.”

The concepts generally improve walking conditions, though concept 3 drastically increases conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians and will predictably increase the crash rate.

Preliminary project goals, page 7 of PDF:

“Ensure corridor is safe for all users • Maintain adequate traffic flow • Reinforce residential character • Appropriate traffic speed • Improve conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit riders.”

None of the concepts furthers all of these goals. Achieving goals of reinforcing the residential character and improving bicycling conditions is particularly difficult.

Conclusion

Improving conditions on Western Avenue isn’t going to be easy. The City’s concept drawings show three plans which, at best, improve conditions for pedestrians, but which worsen them for motorists and which either effect little change or worsen them for bicyclists. Some alternatives are more promising, but any that are to effect major improvements are unlikely to be politically palatable until and unless the price of motoring gets much higher.

June 20, 2010

June 21, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 8:53 pm

June 21, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

This will be the last City Council meeting before the summer recess. Monday Night Live will return on Aug 2 (and then again on Sept 13) unless some dire emergency occurs. The agenda is brief but does have one contentious Order from Council Kelley (who seems to like stirring controversy of late) challenging the preference given to current residents applying for subsidized housing.

The zoning amendment relating to the Broad Institute’s proposed expansion in Kendall Square will also have to be passed to a 2nd Reading in order to be voted at the Aug 2 (Midsummer) meeting, five days prior to its expiration. In fact, this will make three zoning petitions to be voted (or allowed to expire) at the Aug 2 meeting (including two passed to a 2nd Reading on June 14). Here are some of the more noteworthy items on the June 21 agenda:

City Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Number 10-46, requesting a report detailing issues of greatest importance that are before the Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB).

There’s nothing particularly revealing in this report, but in the context of a former PRAB director’s effort to milk the City in court plus the Great Gatescapade last summer, anything even remotely related is potentially a hot topic. Expect one or more councillors to use this opportunity to branch out to several barely related matters before they head off for their summer vacation.

City Manager’s Agenda #14. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Number 10-76, regarding current tree related ordinances, state statutes and informal policies.

This is referenced not because it’s such an earth-shattering topic, but rather to point out that trees and dogs are topics guaranteed to bring out the passions in Cantabrigians. Parking is #3 on the list. I suppose one could conclude from this prioritization that Cambridge is a rather sleepy little village these days. Elsewhere they worry about unemployment, violence, and substance abuse. In Cambridge we lose our minds over dog parks, leaf blowers, tree removal, and finding a parking space. Count your blessings, I suppose.

Resolution #7. Congratulations to Susan Glazer on being appointed Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development.   Mayor Maher

This past Wednesday was Beth Rubenstein’s last day on the job as head of CDD. It will be interesting to see how the focus of the department evolves over the next few years – regardless who gets the job permanently. The City rarely makes wholesale changes in any department, and the Community Development Department is well-staffed in such areas as housing (10 people), community planning (13 people), economic development (5 people), environmental and transportation planning (9 people), plus several others – 44 full-time positions in the FY1022 Budget. Regardless what kinds of policy Orders are passed by this or any previous City Council, there is great inertia/momentum associated with such a significant professional staff – many of whom have been there for some time – and changes rarely happen overnight.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant departments to change Cambridge’s housing lottery system to eliminate the residence preference.   Councillor Kelley

This Order will die on an 8-1 vote. It’s not even clear that Craig Kelley will ultimately vote for his own Order. This does, however, bring attention to some of the paradoxes inherent in several City initiatives. For example, if you locate a wet shelter for active alcoholics in Central Square, this will likely lead to an INCREASE in the number of active alcoholics in the area (unless, of course, every town were to build a wet shelter – which will not happen). If you build it, they will come. Similarly, when Cambridge takes the initiative to build “affordable housing,” the number of people seeking this housing in Cambridge will inevitably go up, not down. One can speculate that the residential preference might cause an increase in demand for this City-sponsored housing among existing residents in excess of the rate at which new housing units can be added to the supply.

If Councillor Kelley is bothered by the preference given to current residents in subsidized housing, perhaps he should also file an Order regarding the numerous well-educated and able-bodied activists who somehow manage to get subsidized housing in Cambridge. Why get a job when it might jeopardize your cheap housing?

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to organize a forum forecasting future housing needs for older Cantabrigians that incorporates a panel of housing experts.   Vice Mayor Davis, Mayor Maher and Councillor Simmons

This is a worthwhile goal, but would this be additional subsidized housing on top of existing programs, or should there be a shift in existing resources toward elderly people who might really need the housing in resource-rich Cambridge?

Order #2. Cancellation of the June 28, 2010 City Council meeting.   Vice Mayor Davis

Rarely does a City Council Order get unanimous sponsorship prior to the meeting. This one did! Early summer vacation! Please note that of the 17 City Council committees, 8 of them have yet to meet and only 1 of these 8 has any meetings scheduled.

Order #11. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to identify areas in need of additional bike racks and the feasibility of installing long term “bike sheds” or “bike lockers” for storage of commuter bikes near metro stations.   Councillor Cheung

The City can start by clearing out the many bicycles that have been locked and not touched for months in Central Square. That would free up quite a few locations for locking up a bike. Let’s hope the City doesn’t start cracking down on the harmless practice of locking bikes to parking meters. Rarely does this cause any obstruction or inconvenience and it greatly increases the available lockups in business districts. — Robert Winters

June 14, 2010

June 14, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:58 pm

June 14, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s agenda is dominated by the disposition of several zoning-related matters. There’s also a potential time-sink in Councillor Cheung’s Order regarding the legislation recently passed by the Massachusetts House regarding illegal immigration. The Order does not just “disapprove” of the legislation, it “condemns” it. Here’s what we have, starting with the proposed amendment regarding conversion of buildings from Institutional to Residential use (which was initiated by the advertised sale of buildings by the Jesuits and the questionable suggestion by Councillor Toomey that these should be purchased in order to densely pack subsidized housing units onto the sites – Mar 22 Order #1, Apr 5 Mgr #11):

City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the City Council Rezoning Petition to Modify Section 5.28.2 Related to Buildings Occupied by Institutional Uses. [The Planning Board does not recommend adoption of the Petition as filed.]

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 6, 2010 to consider a proposed amendment to Section 5.28.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the applicability of Section 5.28 to structures that may have been built for residential use but have been in Institutional (religious, educational, governmental) use for at least ten years.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 9, 2010 to continue discussion of a proposed amendment to Section 5.28.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the applicability of section 5.28 Conversation of Non Residential Structures to Residential Use to include structures that may have been built for residential use but have been in Institutional Use for at least ten years.

There were significant issues raised at the committee hearings about this proposal and the Planning Board gave the idea a “thumbs down.” This proposal was primarily a reaction to the apparent sale of these buildings to Harvard University. The spirit of the proposal was similar to the rhetoric that accompanied the allocation of CPA funds toward historic preservation at Shady Hill Square, i.e. the insincere statement that subsidized housing should be built in the tonier parts of town as an act of class warfare against a perceived elite. There are also elements of resentment growing from the frequent siting of such projects in places like North and East Cambridge. In any case, zoning amendments should ideally not be proposed just because you’re pissed off.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on June 9, 2010 to continue discussion of a petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance in accord with the recommendations of the Green Building Task Force to encourage energy efficient buildings.

With a positive Planning Report and now an Ordinance Committee Report, this will presumably be passed to a 2nd Reading and ordained later this month. The zoning change would only affect new construction and large scale renovations.

Charter Right #2. Charter Right exercised by Mayor Maher on Order Number Six of June 7, 2010 requesting the City Manager to confer with the Community Development Department and Boston Properties to report back to the Ordinance Committee of the City Council on June 9th, 2010, on whether the ground floor retail proposed by Boston Properties would be of the size and nature suitable for a grocery store, convenience store, or small foodstuffs boutique.

This matter was hotly debated at the previous meeting. There are numerous issues at play such as whether the proposal would effectively kill the possibility of new housing in the Kendall Square MXD district. Councillor Cheung’s Order #6 from last week was actually far more comprehensive than I had originally noticed and included a provision for what was arguably commercial rent control for “upstart local entrepreneurs”. Another significant issue was whether there was any guarantee of the long-term tenancy of the Broad Institute at this site, a new local institution with “favored nation” status. As is often the case, allegations of quid-pro-quo political contributions by the developer/owner have been made but not substantiated.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and report back to the University Relations Committee the feasibility of the City creating a “Welcoming Packet” for new students, distributed by the universities with information on public services, Cambridge history and culture, and a calendar of civic events.   Councillor Cheung

This brings back recollections of a similar Order in 2000 from former Councillor Jim Braude calling for a “welcome wagon” for new residents. (Order #6, April 24, 2000). Here’s an summary of the ensuing conversation a decade ago.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of instituting a five cent per disposable bag fee, collected by the City that would in turn be put aside into a fund which purpose is to buy canvas bags wholesale and distribute them to Cambridge residents.   Councillor Cheung

Nanny government. Reusable canvas (or any other material) shopping bags are what everyone should use, but they’re plentiful and cheap and already distributed at all sorts of events. Cambridge residents don’t need to be taxed or subsidized for such trivialities, especially when they are already so freely available.

Order #3. Opposition to the amendment that was passed to the budget bill regarding immigrants.   Councillor Cheung

It’s interesting that the primary point made in opposition to this state legislation is that it is unnecessary because it adds little more than what is already required of those seeking to take advantage of taxpayer-funded services. Is so, why the strong condemnation? It’s worth noting that Councillor Cheung’s Order focuses on all the contributions of immigrants to this country, but the proposed legislation is not about immigrants. It’s about illegal immigrants, i.e. those who are residing in Massachusetts but have not adhered to existing laws. Councillor Cheung’s Order also correctly challenges the practice of creating policy through budget amendments, but the federal government does this routinely. The Order correctly points out that there may be substantial costs associated with enforcing the proposed legislation. In any case, be it Arizona or Cambridge, it’s ridiculous that the inability of the U.S. Congress to address these matters causes individual states to take such actions. Regardless of party affiliation, spines appear not to be part of anatomy of U.S. Congressmen and Senators. – Robert Winters

May 25, 2010

Message to Susan Clippinger, Director of Traffic, Parking, & Transportation

Filed under: Cambridge government — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 2:42 pm

May 25: Message to Susan Clippinger, Director of Traffic, Parking, & Transportation

Annoying as it is to have parking meters in front of my house at which you personally park YOUR car all day on most days, it is especially annoying when one of your thoroughly unprofessional parking officers chooses to harass me for pulling up in front of my house to unload groceries for all of two minutes without feeding the meter. When I asked her to just cut me some slack, she circled back to the meter getting ready to write me a ticket. She told me to take it up with you, so I am.

From which pool exactly do you draw your employees, Susan? Recent news stories suggest it’s a rather shallow pool. This particular “officer” is apparently well known for her harassment of people. I feel certain that now that she has matched my address, my face, and my vehicle I can expect to get “special treatment” from her at every turn. Perhaps I’ll point her out to you when next we meet. In the meantime, perhaps you’ll finally give some consideration to a policy regarding people without driveways and with parking meters in front of their homes. In my case, the primary users of the metered spaces on Broadway and on Inman Street are those coming to visit your very own department at 344 Broadway. Would it be so difficult for you to instruct your officers to cut some slack for the actual residents of these streets who need to occasionally unload groceries? Would that kill you, Susan?

Councillor Toomey has raised this issue on numerous occasions and you’ve ignored him every time. No wonder most elected officials hold you in such low regard. If the state-mandated Traffic Board existed, I would petition them, but you have chosen to ignore state law for many years now – leaving citizens no recourse other than to beg you when they feel a regulation should be changed. In the meantime, just cut us a little slack, OK? – Robert Winters

May 24, 2010

May 24, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:27 pm

May 24, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight is Budget Adoption Night at City Hall. The related Finance Committee reports are these:

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for public hearings held on May 5, 2010, May 13, 2010 and May 19, 2010 relative to the General Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $426,629,125.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 13, 2010 relative to the Water Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $16,416,120.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 13, 2010 relative to the Public Investment Fund for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $9,935,015.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a meeting held on May 12, 2010 for the purpose of providing a summary to community leaders of the city’s current and proposed budget and an explanation of how state and federal budget cuts have impacted the city’s budget.

This year’s budget hearings were not controversial except perhaps for the School Department budget which eliminates several clerical positions. That matter still lies “On the Table” though apparently some resolution must be in the works as indicated by the lack of rancor reported at the May 19 School Department budget hearing. Perhaps some contractual guarantees prevailed or maybe positions elsewhere in Cambridge government were found in response to lobbying by city councillors and school committee members.

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-64, regarding the sale of the Sullivan Courthouse. [“In light of the courthouse’s great size (460,000 square feet), lack of parking associated with the building, and its out-of-date architectural style, I do not see any public reuse for the structure.” … “Should the property be sold to and redeveloped by a private entity local zoning would apply. We have expressed our willingness to work closely with any owner to develop a project of more moderate height and scale; with active ground floor uses; including some portion of residential use, in keeping with the neighborhood context; and with appropriate parking supply based on building uses.”]

The referenced courthouse building really is out of place and out of time – the product of a misplaced sense of progress decades ago. A modest-scale private mixed residential/commercial/office redevelopment is probably the best reuse for the site. Any proposals that have been floated for a public marketplace in the Lechmere area should happen in and around the existing commercial corridors along Cambridge Street and the O’Brien Highway (the former Bridge Street). There must surely also be a way to integrate the court functions that were previously in the Sullivan Courthouse into existing and new buildings adjacent to the historic court buildings in the Lechmere area.

City Manager’s Agenda #19. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-77, regarding a report on a review of investments and business practices engaged in by the City to determine what activities are conducted with the State of Arizona. [“Following a review of the City’s current listing of CD’s purchased through Morgan Stanley, it was determined that a $100,000 CD was purchased on Apr 9, 2009 from the Asian Bank located in Phoenix, Arizona. The CD has a maturity date of July 9, 2010, and will not be renewed after reaching maturity. Our representative at Morgan Stanley has been instructed to refrain from purchasing any further investments in the State of Arizona.”]

Not unexpectedly, the City’s Arizona investments amounted to pocket change. The City Council has (thankfully) not yet voted on a meaningless policy position on the recent Arizona law regarding suspected illegal immigrants.

Resolution #22. Happy Birthday wishes to a special Cantabrigian.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Cheung, Councillor Decker, Councillor Kelley, Mayor Maher, Councillor Reeves, Councillor Seidel and Councillor Toomey

Hmmm….. Henrietta Davis had a birthday on May 18 and she’s the only city councillor not listed as a sponsor. Could she be that “special Cantabrigian?” Had this been Councillor Reeves’ birthday, he would have been the lead sponsor.

Resolution #36. Congratulations to Littane Bien-Aime on being selected a 2010 Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Fellow following a nationwide contest.   Councillor Cheung

We hope that the Rangel award is not in recognition of ethical violations such as using political connections to evade New York City housing laws or accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean.

Order #7. That the City Council Committee on Transportation, Traffic and Parking schedule a public meeting on the City’s traffic calming and bike facility programs.   Councillor Kelley

It’s likely nothing will come of this, but Councillor Kelley is to be commended for directing some attention toward the generally unquestioned and arbitrary decisions of City transportation planners.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the property known as the Norton Woods that has been reopened after being closed due to flooding with a newly instituted no dogs policy.   Councillor Decker

The bottom line is that this area is not public property and the owners (American Academy of Arts and Sciences) can institute any rules they wish. They’ve been great in allowing public access to the property and though it may be worth politely asking a question or two about their policy on dogs, ultimately it’s their call.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to inform the City Council on how the Cambridge Historical Commission, the Cambridge Room of the Cambridge Public Library, the Cambridge Historical Society, and Cambridge Community Television might work together to digitize the various Cambridge historical collections and determine how these various entities will work together to preserve Cambridge history of the past, current happenings, social history, architectural history and preservation, and other matters of historical significance to Cambridge.   Councillor Reeves

This is a timely and useful Order from Councillor Reeves. Though it’s unclear why CCTV is included in the mix, the fact is that we now have a proper Cambridge Room at the new Main Library and there’s a clear need to preserve and archive material and to make much of it digitally available. A professional archivist was reportedly to be hired, but it’s not clear from the FY2011 budget whether this has actually taken place or what the job responsibilities would be for this person and for others already working in the Historical Commission who might play a role in such a project. This is an area where volunteer assistance and a cooperative arrangement with the Cambridge Historical Society (which is already engaged in digital archiving) may be worth considering.

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a delineation of the boundaries of Joan Lorentz Park.   Councillor Seidel

Normally this might be just a formality, but with the new Library, reconstruction at the high school, and pedestrian connections being reconfigured around these tightly integrated uses, it’s worth clarifying who’s responsible for maintaining which pieces of this jigsaw puzzle. In some respects, everything outside of the buildings has the feel of a single contiguous park, but clarity today may be helpful 20 or 30 years from now should there be future plans to reconfigure the space.

Committee Report #6. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on May 6, 2010 to consider a petition filed by the City Council on behalf of the Green Building/Zoning Task Force to amend the zoning ordinance to encourage green building practices in Cambridge.

Normally, a committee report like this doesn’t really stand out, but there is one notable record of public testimony in the report worth highlighting:

Guy Asaph, 29 Oakdale Street, said there is no reason for anyone to invest $30,000 in a solar system. A $25,000 investment would produce $25 in electricity. There is no incentive. He said that if we want to make energy issues seriously, there have to be real incentives. The proposals are nice, but they do not go far enough. The greenest buildings are big buildings, so up-zoning and providing incentives are the best ways to make Cambridge buildings more energy efficient.

Though the units of measurement are clearly misstated here (an investment of $25,000 is a one-time cost, but it’s unclear whether the $25 in electricity is per month, per year, or over the useful life of the investment), it is useful to be clear about whether there is much bang for the buck in some proposed energy projects like solar panels and wind turbines. I have heard credible testimony suggesting that the payback for energy generation projects like these are very minimal in a Cambridge context, while energy conservation measures (such as insulation and higher efficiency) usually have clear economic and environmental benefits. Where should the investment money be concentrated? Insulation and efficiency seem to be the smart choices much more than on-site power generation. Cambridge is not the same as Hull or Oklahoma (“where the wind comes sweeping down the plain”).

Mr. Aseph doesn’t stop at questioning the economics of solar installations. He also makes the case for packing more and more higher density buildings into the City. Considering the fact that he develops real estate for a living, this is a rather self-serving vision (to say the least) even if there may be a grain of truth in his wish to upzone the city ever higher. — Robert Winters

May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 10:40 am

May 3, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Manager will give an overview of the FY2011 City Budget early in tonight’s meeting followed by the usual platitudes from councillors. The Budget Hearings start this Wednesday (see schedule below). Word is going around that hordes of townies will be at tonight’s meeting for Councillor Toomey’s tabled Order from the previous meeting. [That the City Manager is requested to restore funding for School Department clerical positions until a proper and negotiated process can be achieved with the Cambridge School Department and Unions representing the employees, and to report back to the City Council on the progress.] School Committee members have commented that these changes occurred only after appropriate process and that these staff reductions are consistent with a long-held commitment to cut back on excesses in central administration within the School Department. It would seem that some of these jobs may have their roots in political friendship. More significant is the question of whether it is appropriate for the Cambridge City Council to intervene in personnel issues within the School Department and under the supervision of that other elected body – the Cambridge School Committee.

There are also these other items of minor interest:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of offering closed captioning for streaming video on the City’s website.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor Decker

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of updating the City of Cambridge’s website with automatic translation software.   Councillor Cheung

Very well to make this information accessible to all, but it does raise the issue of diminishing returns. How much additional investment and staff support will it take to provide these marginal benefits?

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to investigate the possibility of making the property at 93 Kirkland Street part of Cambridge’s affordable housing stock through purchase and renovation by the City or by a qualified non-profit.   Councillor Seidel

Once again, the knee-jerk response is that taxpayer money should be spent without question on “affordable housing” projects. Maybe it’s a good idea, but taxpayers should really question where their money is going.

Communications and Reports from City Officers #1. A communication was received from Mayor David P. Maher, transmitting changes in the membership of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee. [Councillor Decker has been removed from this committee, per her request. Councillor Simmons has been appointed to this committee. The committee now consists of Councillors Seidel (Chair), Cheung, and Simmons.]

The entertaining thing about this communication is that Councillor Decker wishes to cut down on her committees because of “the breadth of work I expect to be engaged in as Chair of the Housing, Health, and Finance Committee.” Suffice to say that Councillor Decker’s record of attendance at Council committees has been at or near the bottom for as long as she’s been on the City Council. It will be interesting to see the “breadth of work” of which she speaks. She will now serve on just 6 committees while all of her Council colleagues will serve on 8, 9 or 10 committees. — Robert Winters

Wed, May 5

9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget. This hearing to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)

Police Department
License Commission
Mayor’s Office
Executive
City Council
City Clerk
Law		 Finance Admin.
Budget
Personnel
Assessing
Purchasing
Auditing
Treasury/Revenue		 Information Technology
Employee Benefits
General Services
Election Commission
Public Celebrations
Reserve
Animal Commission		 Fire Department
Traffic, Parking & Transportation
Police Review & Advisory Board
Inspectional Services
Weights & Measures
Electrical
Emergency Communications

Date changes for individual departments may occur.

Wed, May 12
6:00pm The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public meeting for the purposes of providing a summary to community leaders of the city’s current and proposed budget and an explanation of how state and federal budget cuts have impacted the city’s budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, May 13
9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Cambridge Health Alliance
Public Works
Water
Community Development
Historical Commission		 Conservation Commission
Peace Commission
Cable TV
Debt Service
Library		 Human Services
Women’s Commission
Human Rights Commission
Veterans
MWRA		 Cherry Sheet
Summaries Section
Revenue Section
Public Investment

Date changes for individual departments may occur.

Wed, May 19
6:00pm The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 School Department Budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, May 20
9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget (if necessary). This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 24
5:30pm City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber) – Expected date of Budget Adoption.

April 30, 2010

Concord Avenue: City’s position, and comments

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,planning — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 3:20 pm

On April 27, Kelly Dunn, Community Relations Manager of the Cambridge Department of Public Works, sent the e-mail below to a number of people. One was Jessica Eckhardt, who lives near the project area. The sections below in quotes are Ms. Dunn’s e-mail and the other sections are Ms. Eckhardt’s and my response.

Dear Jessica,

Thank you for your input and suggestions regarding the cycle tracks on Concord Ave.  I hope I can address some of your concerns.

A few years ago a comprehensive planning study of the area was completed.  The Concord-Alewife Study examined the current support system for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, and looked at how we might enhance access through additional connections in the Alewife Quadrangle.  I encourage you to take a look at the study:  http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/concalew/concale_plan_all.pdf

We like what that study says, but on the other hand, your statement chttp://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/concalew/concale_plan_all.pdfhanges the subject. That study contains no mention of “raised bike lanes”.

As projects move forward, we hope to be able to implement some of the connections noted in the study. Regarding the overall design of Concord Avenue, there are a few things to note. The reconstruction that will happen is a complete right-of-way reconstruction, with reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs and drainage systems; this would happen in any case and is not being done specifically to create the raised bike lane.

So, the “raised bike lane” just sorta happened?  No, the City is consciously taking advantage of the need to reconstruct the street and sewers to create the so-called “raised bike lanes”.

Why the quotes? By definition, both technical and vernacular, there is no such thing as a “raised bike lane”. Any lane is part of the roadway, at roadway level. A bike path is separate from the roadway, and standards for safe design apply to it too.  Under the proposed design, neither the street nor the paths meet design standards that apply in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The raised bike lane is just that: bicyclists will be in the exact same location as they are now.

That statement turns attention away from the issues by discussing location instead of behavior. The statement makes a host of assumptions, first of which is that cyclists only need to ride in the bike lane. Yes, you can be in the exact same place, but your options are very different if you are behind a curb.

Consider access to and from the eastbound “raised bike lane.”  To reach it from most entrances on the north side, cyclists will have to cross most of the way, dismount, lift their bicycles over a curb and remount. Eastbound cyclists on the south side will have to hop down a curb at most places to turn left. The difficulty and danger of crossing the street will strongly encourage wrong-way riding, a practice which Cambridge has correctly disparaged in the past and is ignoring with this project.

Also, cyclists may now merge out of the bike lane to allow motorists to turn right without conflict. This option is denied with the “raised bike lanes”.

This is not a sidewalk path and bicyclists and pedestrians are separated by a street furniture zone, where street trees and street lights are located.

We do anticipate pedestrians spilling over or choosing to use the “raised bike lane” for travel – also cyclists using the pedestrian strip. In some places, the available width for both is only 10 feet. Still, the most disturbing issue with riding on a sidewalk-level facility is not so much the conflicts with pedestrians. It is the conflicts with motor vehicles — when riding the right way and much more so when riding the wrong way.

No matter what the design, the north side of Concord Avenue cannot be a safe location for the novice and child cyclists the City wants to attract. There is heavy turning and crossing traffic, at way too many locations. We have suggested extending the multi-use path on the south side — which has its benefits and drawbacks — the most notable benefit is safety for the inexperienced and child cyclists, with only one driveway crossing in the same distance.

At intersections and driveways, the facility is a regular in-street bike lane.

This is inaccurate and reveals a serious misunderstanding. The design drawings show the facility coming down to street level within a few feet of each street or driveway. To operate as a bike lane, it would have to come down at least 100 feet farther away, so that cyclists and motorists could negotiate lane position before and after the intersection. The City is not unfamiliar with this concept, which it used in its Vassar Street project. With, on average, one driveway or street every 100 feet, allowing merging distance around intersections and driveways would leave the westbound facility a bike lane just as it is now, for almost the entire length of the project.

There will be added signage reminding motorists to yield to cyclists.

Right-turning motorists will have to stop and wait, rather than merging into the bike lane before turning. Expect congestion, and mistakes. Signs or no signs, left-turning motorists will be unable to see past vehicles in the westbound lane. The best a left-turner can do is to creep forward until his or her vehicle’s hood provides a warning to cyclists that they need to yield.

There is nothing about the design that changes where cyclists travel over a standard bicycle lane.

This statement ignores the need to cross the street, among others, as already discussed.

Turning movements are always a concern, on all roads, whether there are bicycle facilities or not. There is no evidence that a raised bike lane with this design would make the situation worse; to the contrary, it increases the visibility of the cyclist, as well as decreases the likelihood of other dangerous behaviors such as motor vehicles parking in the bike lane.

That is an astonishing statement. Such evidence has existed for decades. It follows from human factors analysis (e.g, that drivers do not have x-ray vision, as already discussed), and from safety studies on both sides of the Atlantic. See for example this review of research results. And, a recent, extensive study in Copenhagen confirmed substantially-increased crash rates for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike.

If everything about positioning is the same, how can a height difference of 6 inches — or less, when the facility slants down before a street or driveway — make the cyclists more visible, especially to left-turning traffic? Will the child cyclists be more visible? Will any cyclists be visible when to the right of vans, trucks and buses?

As to your concern about motor vehicles parking in the bike lane, there is ample parking in the adjacent industrial area, and besides, the bike lane is too narrow to park in. Parking there is rare, illegal and subject to fines and towing. If there is no bike lane, any illegal parking will be in the travel lane instead or with one wheel up over the curb in the “raised bike lane”.

It’s important for cyclists to feel safe; especially riders with children and others who would not choose to ride on major streets with high volumes and high speeds of traffic.

We find it very distressing that the City proposes to attract unsuspecting cyclists including children onto a facility that crosses 24 driveways and 7 streets in 3000 feet, with known and serious crash risks, by making them feel safe — when the option exists for a path with only one, signalized intersection on the other side of the same street. Is it acceptable to make people feel safe when actually creating hazards for them? There is a vernacular term for this action: “Pied Piper” and also a legal term.”attractive nuisance.” We vote to re-examine the project on the basis of true safety, rather than an illusion of safety.

The City is committed to supporting and promoting sustainable transportation, and making it available and accessible to all. Raised bicycle lanes have been proven to be safe, effective facilities, which enable more people to choose to bicycle.

We support sustainable transportation too. We ride our bicycles almost every day, and we desire real safety improvements. Please cite your sources and clarify whether you are stating that a “raised bike lane” with so many intersections and immediately behind a high curb has been shown safe.

The project will also have important benefits to other users, especially pedestrians, who will have a greater buffer from motor vehicle traffic and improved street crossings. It is also expected that narrowing the curb-to-curb width of the street will help to reduce speeds, which are currently excessive.

Then we would be trying to use the cyclists and the car-bike conflicts as a shield, sacrificing one group for the benefit of the other. See especially the table on page 3 of the Copenhagen study, which was limited to the most carefully-designed street-corridor separated bicycle facilities. It found streets with these facilities more hazardous than other streets — for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike. Many features of the Concord Avenue design increase the hazard far beyond that of the Copenhagen facilities. Please, Ms. Dunn, show us your evidence to the contrary. We can’t just take your word for what you say, when public safety is at stake.

Yes, speeds are sure to decrease when the motorists are brought to a complete halt to wait to turn right across the “raised bike lane” and to a crawl to try to avoid collisions when turning left.  Speeds could easily be controlled with traffic enforcement or with other measures, for example, raised pedestrian crossings.

One of the primary goals of the project is to improve conditions for people walking and biking on Concord Avenue, while maintaining vehicular capacity.  The number of travel lanes will remain the same as today.

A “raised bike lane” is not a bike lane. The number of lanes will be reduced by two. A cyclist, who has the right to use the roadway under the laws of the Commonwealth, will no longer have eastbound and westbound bike lanes on the road. Also, capacity for motor vehicles will be reduced because motorists will have to stop before turning right, and will have to creep forward (we hope) while turning left, to yield to cyclists they can not see.

The conditions for cyclists and pedestrians will deteriorate with the snow in winter and no place to put it.  Even if the “raised bike lane” is cleared, it will remain partly coated with slush and ice.

A community meeting was held last spring and the project has been reviewed by community groups, the city’s bicycle and pedestrian committees, the disabilities commission, and the committee on public planting.

The Cambridge bicycle program likes push the envelope by imitating European practice. People who are not familiar with the research literature can easily be convinced that the grass is always greener in Copenhagen, and that all such innovation is positive. This project also plays into the widespread public misperception that bicycling on sidewalks is safe. Some European designs are faulty, and this project in addition reflects a poor imitation of European practice. It will create a situation far worse than possible alternatives, and a perception of safety without really increasing safety. That is not positive innovation.

I (Jessica) am requesting meeting minutes and a copy of the flyer that was supposedly distributed around my neighborhood. I also ask why Massbike was not informed of the construction project.

If you would like, I can add your email to my public notification list; you can also check the progress of upcoming work at our website as well: http://www.cambridgema.gov/TheWorks/

Thank you again for your comments.  I will be sending out periodic construction updates at the work progresses.  If at any time you run into issues, feel free to contact me or Dan Vallee, project manager.

Sincerely,

Kelly

Kelly Dunn

Community Relations Manager

Cambridge Department of Public Works
147 Hampshire Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
T:  617.349.4870
F:  617.349.4814

kdunn *at* cambridgema *dot* gov

www.cambridgema.gov/theworks

[All contact information here is already available on the Internet; e-mail address has been altered to avoid contributing to harvesting by spam robots.]

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress