Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

April 24, 2023

Preview of April 24, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,cycling,Fresh Pond,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:18 pm

Preview of April 24, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here’s my survey of the more interesting items on this week’s agenda:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of School Committee Member Caroline Hunter as a member of the Family Policy Council.
Appointment Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as member of the to the Cambridge Commission on the Status of Women for a term of three years: • Jean Connor (appointment) • Caitlin Dube (appointment) • Rhonda Greene (reappointment) • Mara Horwitz (appointment) • Natalie Le (appointment) • Judith Tumusiime (appointment)
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the the Mass Ave Partial Construction Working Group: • Sukia Akiba • Steven Beaucher • Darren Buck • Christopher Cassa • Makayla Comas-Race • Gary Dmytryk • Debby Galef • Diane Gray • Denise Jillson • Timothy Keefe • Ruth Ryals • Eitan Normand • Daniel Stubbs • Laurie Pessah
Appointments Approved 9-0

“The Working Group will meet over a period of 12 months to advise City staff on key issues related to the planning, design, and construction of this important project.”

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, requesting that the City Council authorize an agreement to partner with the Town of Arlington (“Arlington”) in its receipt of a federal planning grant (“Grant”) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”).
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins, Zondervan, Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan (Roundtable suggested); Nolan offers a committee hearing and Siddiqui agrees; Order Adopted 9-0 (after Siddiqui misstep of merely calling for a vote to accept report and place on file)

“The Grant is to conduct a study in furtherance of this work undertaken by Arlington and the City as members of the Resilient Mystic Collaborative (“RMC”). … The Grant concerns the Amelia Earhart and the Charles River (the Island End River and the Draw 7 Park) dams that protect Arlington, the City, and other communities from coastal flooding. … Arlington’s Hazard Mitigation Plan recognizes coastal hazards as high and serious for Massachusetts but not currently applicable because of dams that turned the upper Mystic and Charles Rivers from tidal estuaries to freshwater impoundments. However, climate projections show the dams at risk of being overtopped by 2030 and failing by 2050.”

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to improvements to the area around Jerry’s Pond. (CM23#103) [Danehy Bridge Connectivity] [Open Space Needs Assessment] [Jerry’s Pond Communication from CM]
pulled by Siddiqui who expresses shock and disappointment on City’s lack of transparency in diversion of funds; Carlone says $400,000 is peanuts and that we should do both projects (bridge and Jerry’s Pond enhancements); McGovern notes ~700 new trees and ~$14 million from IQHQ but disappointment w/diversion of funds from Jerry’s Pond study; Toner asks what reasoning was for diversion of funds; O’Riordan notes loss of significant trees and level of excessive excavation and inability of site to act as wetland due to hydrology, potential benefits questionable; Comm. Watkins reiterates concerns about loss of significant trees, suggests a floating wetland adjacent to Rindge Avenue without doing excavation; Toner would like this all summarized in a memo, notes additional time and cost associated with plans from Friends of Jerry’s Pond; O’Riordan notes that IQHQ owns the site and that they do not support to proposal from advocates; Zondervan expresses concern about other groups not getting their ARRPA funds and Council’s inability to determine allocations, wants improvements on Rindge Ave. edge; City Manager Huang expresses gratitude to the advocates, City still looking at plans, says City does not take lightly reallocation of funds, echoes comment of Deputy City Manager, notes 2200 dump-truck loads of required excavation, concern about $600,000 toward a proposal that would not happen; Nolan acknowledges work of advocates and that plans improved as a result, expresses delight with RR crossing but would prefer an underpass instead; O’Riordan says City will be exploring both a bridge and an underpass; Nolan has liability concerns; Watkins notes significant amount of urban fill that would have to be moved and disposed – not clean soil, liability would fall on IQHQ; Azeem appreciates learning now about infeasible plans; Referred (Zondervan) to NLTP Committee 9-0Danehy Bridge Connectivity

“we plan to reallocate the ARRPA funds identified to study the feasibility of renovating Jerry’s Pond to fund the 25% design of a new bike and pedestrian bridge over the Fitchburg Commuter Line to connect Rindge Avenue and Danehy Park. … The latest multi-use path projects, including the upcoming Danehy-New Street Path and the recent completion of the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway, make the bike/ped bridge connection over the Fitchburg Commuter Line even more valuable.”

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-08, regarding a report regarding exploring additional less-lethal alternatives that pose the smallest risk of injury when deployed for standard issue in the Cambridge Police Department. (CM23#104) [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan who wants report also referred to Public Safety Committee for further discussion; Toner notes that only “Axon Taser 10” and “FN-303 Less-Lethal Launcher” (a shoulder-fired weapons system that is accurate from up to 160 feet) are not currently part of CPD inventory, would prefer that this matter not be referred to committee; Police Superintendent Rob Lowe notes that only the taser is currently recommended for addition to inventory; Simmons notes our exemplary Police Department, wants to allow Commissioner Elow freedom to make recommendations informed by ongoing study; McGovern asks about concerns that if officers had tasers this might lead to less de-escalation; Lowe notes that significant training would accompany any use of tasers; McGovern notes willingness of CPD to self-evaluate and adapt; Mallon asks about why FN-303 and “Vector Shield” not currently recommended; Nolan asks when PERF report may be available; Elow says they have begun and report will not be available until after inquest is done; Siddiqui chimes in; Zondervan notes that tasers can also be lethal; Report Referred to Public Safety Committee 9-0

“Whenever practicable, Cambridge Police officers are to use verbal and non-verbal engagement techniques and de-escalation actions to stabilize a law enforcement situation so that more time, options, and resources are available to gain a person’s voluntary compliance and to reduce or eliminate the need to use force. However, when de-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not feasible based on the totality of the circumstances, officers are authorized to use reasonable force to gain, maintain, or reestablish control to protect the lives and safety of others and/or themselves.” … “we are recommending that the department wait and evaluate PERF’s final report and recommendations before we consider pursuing or expanding less-lethal options.”

Charter Right #2. Riverbend Park on Memorial Drive. [Charter Right – Simmons, Apr 10, 2023]
Simmons notes comments by Riverside residents who feel disrespected by Council intentions to ask DCR reconsideration – “people closest to the pain should be closest to the power” – asks Councillors Nolan and Azeem to rescind or table this Order; Nolan fully supports Order and claims that only a small number of people object, suggests that people in Riverside support all-weekend closure, proposes amendment to seek legal justification for full weekend closure; Carlone says all sides are right, City has insufficient open space, DCR controls the land and road, compliments Suzanne Blier (and others) suggestion to close from Eliot Bridge to JFK Street on Saturdays; Zondervan notes that DCR has decided against Saturday closures so Riverside residents were heard, calls traffic on Memorial Drive environmental injustice, says eventually it will be closed all weekend; Azeem notes that Order expresses disappointment about DCR decision to not consider other options; McGovern is dismissive of Blier proposal if this is a matter of legal authority, notes that neighborhood is divided on issue, wants traffic mitigation regardless; Siddiqui on defense over neighborhood concerns, agrees with need for traffic mitigation; Carlone notes that Blier proposal would still need DCR approval, notes that City has insufficient capacity for studying traffic; Simmons notes that compromise proposal for Eliot Bridge to JFK St. was suggested by multiple people; Nolan protests Simmons suggestion that a cover letter include minority view – Simmons takes exception; Order Adopted 7-2 as Amended (DS,PT – No)

I look forward to yet another meeting where advocates on either side of an issue talk past each other. I also expect a lot of “studies have shown” rhetorical BS. In the end, this may simply come down to whether someone has “pull” with the incoming DCR Commissioner.

Communications #22. A communication was received from Joan Pickett, regarding Material for Monday City Council Meeting. [Analysis of Cycling Safety in Cambridge Under the Cycling Safety Ordinance Year-3]
Placed on File 9-0

At the very least, this partially fills the gap left by the City’s failure to actually evaluate the safety impacts of various road reconfigurations undertaken in recent years. I’ll leave it to others to sift through the statistics. Anecdotally, I will say that I feel a lot more nervous when driving now because of the many different road obstructions and greatly narrowed lane widths. Whether they provide increased bicycle safety (as opposed to “comfort”) is debatable. Former Traffic Czar Joe Barr would likely call it all “traffic calming”, but I feel a lot less calm when driving, and I worry a lot more now about cyclists racing up while I’m making a right turn due to decreased visibility. This was not a problem when I previously would simply pull as far to the right as possible when making a turn.

Resolution #2. Resolution on the death of Ruth Hill.   Councillor Simmons
pulled by Simmons with comments of great respect; Adopted 9-0

Ruth Edmonds Hill was a magnificent and brilliant person in her own right, but some may remember “Sister Ruth” as the wife of the late Hugh Morgan Hill (“Brother Blue”). [Obituary]

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to bring together a working group to conduct outreach through neighborhood groups including the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance, and any other nearby neighborhood groups and City departments, in order to discuss and review options for use of the BB&N Field.   Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

“this property could be utilized by the City in a variety of important ways, including: a location for the City’s operations, affordable housing development, preschool use, open space, and other uses which would benefit the larger Cambridge community” – It’s worth reiterating my comments from the previous meeting on this topic: “Toner asks about public process in determining uses for City-owned property; Mallon says site would be perfect for an affordable housing development; Zondervan proposes that tall affordable housing towers be built on this site on Larch Road; Carlone prefers mixed use w/o towers and proposes stormwater storage under buildings with zero parking.”

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct relevant departments to work together to develop a policy that would lead to a ban on the use of gas-powered lawn equipment in Cambridge in line with other municipalities and development of possible ordinance language limiting the use of gas-powered lawn equipment by residents, businesses, and city operations.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Toner; Nolan comments; Toner notes that a Working Group was supposed to have been formed (but wasn’t), asks if a proposed ban is a foregone conclusion; Zondervan bemoans fact that a ban has not already been enacted; Nolan states that within a few years there will be no gas-powered cars and no gas-powered equipment; Adopted 9-0, Referred to Health & Environment Committee

Frankly, among all the competing priorities worth pursuing, this ranks pretty low on my list. Then again, I live on a busy street where a leaf blower would be just another instrument in the cacophonous orchestra.

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 1, 2022 to receive an update on the Net Zero Action Plan. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 8, 2022 to conduct a public hearing on proposed BEUDO amendments. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 23, 2022 to continue discussion on the Net Zero Action Plan. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 29, 2022 to receive a report from the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #5. The Health and Environment Committee met on Tues, Apr 11, 2023 to review plans for solar and renewable energy installations in the city, including report on solar expansion and works by the CEA (Cambridge Energy Alliance) and potential for solar on city owned water supply land, and any other items related to renewable energy. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Please note that four of these five reports are from more than a year ago.

Committee Report #6. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Apr 13, 2023 on the Citizen’s Zoning Petition received from Michael Monestime et al. regarding Outdoor Use Zoning in the Central Square Cultural District. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

This zoning petition will likely breeze through to ordination, but lest anyone be concerned about as-of-right noisiness to neighbors, the Cambridge License Commission will continue to have authority to regulate any potential nuisances (as opposed to the Board of Zoning Appeal). – Robert Winters

January 31, 2023

Arlington to Harvard Square on a Bicycle

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 1:44 pm

The video embedded in this post is of my bicycle ride on Massachusetts Avenue from the Arlington town line to Harvard Square and Brattle Street, November 29, 2022. I recorded continuously, so the video runs for 15 minutes. I have added narration explaining my actions. I describe many different riding conditions and strategies, so think that your patience to watch it all the way through is warranted. Most of the time, I chose not to ride in the designated bikeway, in the interest of my safety or to avoid obstructions. I didn’t cause delay for anyone: quite the contrary, the traffic signals established travel times and at the end, I caught up with a truck that had passed me 12 minutes earlier.

This is a high-definition video. For the best viewing experience, expand it to fill the screen.

January 18, 2023

Concerns about Garden Street and environs

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:22 am

Concerns about Garden Street and environs – a letter from Beth Gamse and Judith Singer

From: Beth Gamse
Date: January 12, 2023
To: City Manager; City Councillors; City Clerk; Dept. of Traffic, Parking and Transportation
Subject: Concerns about Garden Street and environs

January 12, 2023

Dear City Manager,
CC: City Council Members, City Clerk, and Acting Director of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department

We write to you to express concerns about the recent changes on Garden Street, which have caused numerous unintended consequences on nearby streets and on the overall system of interconnected streets in western Cambridge. We are residents of one of those nearby streets – Walker Street – and are homeowners, taxpayers, and avid pedestrians.

Over the past year, we have attended all of the informational sessions about changes to Massachusetts Avenue as well as each community meeting about changes to Garden Street, and many City Council meetings at which street safety was a topic. Because our primary mode of transportation is on foot, we are especially interested in pedestrian safety, and we support the City’s commitment to improved safety for its residents and visitors. We appreciate the efforts made by the City, including the City Manager as well as the Traffic, Parking and Transportation (TPT) Department to engage in outreach to the community and conduct research about then-planned, since-implemented changes. However, in our opinion – and those of many of our neighbors on affected streets – the communication efforts and data collection/analyses fall far short of intended goals. Below, we outline specific issues and questions (in bold and italicized) about which we would deeply appreciate a response.

Communication and Participation

TPT engaged in a number of efforts to inform residents about proposed changes, including use of postcards to selected residential/business addresses in the neighborhoods thought to be most likely to experience disruption and posted placards announcing upcoming public meetings. This well-intentioned outreach did not take into account the fact that many people who use Garden Street do not live in the immediate catchment area; rather, they use Garden Street to get somewhere else, and now they use Raymond, Walker, Concord, Bond, Robinson, Madison, Huron, and Walden, among other local streets. From what we understand (based on comments from Representative Decker and other Raymond Street residents at the first and second Listening Sessions in November), Raymond Street residents were not included in the initial outreach about changes to Garden Street even though it [Raymond] is arguably one of the most adversely affected streets. Other than the Listening Sessions and periodic updates on the TPT website, how does the City plan to communicate its decisions about any updates and/or changes in implementation of Garden Street Safety Improvement efforts to ensure that information is available/provided to residents across the city’s system of interconnected streets?

Our understanding of the Garden Street Project is that it is part of a “Quick-Build” approach to make progress toward the Networked Streets and the Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO). Recently, low concrete curbs were placed on Garden Street between Walker Street and the intersection with Concord Avenue, further narrowing the space available to motorists. Can the City please describe how installing concrete barriers is part of the “Quick Build” solutions? Additionally, how will snowplows navigate when snow renders the barriers less visible?

Project costs are not transparent. As taxpayers, we believe residents should be informed about the City’s budget, and the City should be transparent about how it allocates resources. When residents asked about additional pedestrian crossings across Garden Street at the Listening Sessions, we were told that because curb cuts able to accommodate universal access (e.g., wheelchairs, strollers) would require additional infrastructure costs, no additional crosswalks were possible with incurring capital costs. However, even though the installed bicycle lanes are designed as “quick-build” projects that do not include structural changes, the new concrete barriers clearly represent additional infrastructure costs to install – and plow around. How has the City communicated about planned/expected CSO costs to its citizens? When the CSO was passed by the City Council in 2019, was there a projected budget? How much has been allocated/spent so far?

There is little information about intra-departmental communication with other City agencies, including the Fire, Police, Public Works, School, and local hospital/emergency service providers. Informal communication with a dozen police officers assigned to monitor traffic patterns in the weeks after the Garden Street implementation (on Shepard, Garden, Raymond, Bond) revealed they were blind-sided by the changes, and were dismayed about the increased vehicular speeds on Garden and Raymond in particular, despite the speed alert signs. Walker Street, without the electric speed alert signs, has also seen increased vehicular speeds and volume. We raise this issue because we have observed – on multiple occasions – emergency vehicles blocked from traveling eastward on Garden Street because there is nowhere for cars to pull over. On a related note, the state recently passed a new law governing the minimum distance (4 feet) between cars and those who are “vulnerable,” including pedestrians, cyclists, and those engaged in the provision of emergency services (see the Boston Globe, January 3, 2023): “Pedestrians, cyclists gain protections with new law meant to reduce traffic deaths.” While the separated bike lanes may provide close to the required 4 feet, there is insufficient room to provide that distance to emergency vehicles anywhere on Garden Street between Huron Avenue and Arsenal Street. Can the City please describe pre- and post-implementation communication with other departments to ensure that emergency vehicles have the clearance required to pass traffic on Garden Street?

Listening Sessions both in person and via Zoom have always begun not with listening but with presentations by City staff; attendees have only been allowed to voice comments after City staff presentations. While many attendees of these events have noted that they are city residents, many have reported that they live elsewhere, and traverse Cambridge streets to reach their respective destinations. Despite the fact that the sessions were seemingly designed for residents of the affected neighborhoods – the people whose taxes support our city – too many residents were not even able to speak in thee time allotted for feedback, as individuals from other communities voiced their opinions. Can City officials explain why non-residents have equal speaking priority at meetings for Cambridge residents?

It is not clear that feedback provided at the Listening Sessions registers with the City. TPT personnel have described minor and incremental changes while indicating that the overwhelming majority of comments have been in favor of the current arrangement on Garden Street. The two in-person November listening sessions we attended at the Graham and Parks School were overwhelmingly dominated by residents who are concerned about the unintended consequences and whose questions to TPT remain unanswered; the January 4 Zoom session included both those who applaud the Garden Street Safety Project and those who asked the City to reconsider the Garden Street Safety Project, whether in part or whole. Additionally, the recent TPT report indicated that there is strong support for the changes to Garden Street, yet did not acknowledge the substantial community concerns raised at the Listening Sessions. As a result, it is not clear that the City is indeed listening to residents’ concerns. Can the City Manager, TPT, and the City Council please indicate whether any aspects of the project will be reconsidered, and when?

Nomenclature and word choice matter. The name “Garden Street Safety Project” does not communicate the nature of the project clearly or effectively. This project is exclusively driven by the Cycling Safety Ordinance, and while there have been some mentions of pedestrian safety in TPT presentations, they are clearly secondary. It is MORE challenging now than before October 28, 2022, to be a pedestrian on Walker Street, Raymond Street, Shepard Street, and Garden Street, because cars AND bicycles travel too fast, do not heed traffic light signals, stop or yield signs. Ironically, the 2023 parking permits for the City include a sticker for car owners to place on side view mirrors about checking for bikes, but there is no such sticker about checking for pedestrians. Sadly, in the most recent year, approximately 10 times as many pedestrians died in car-related accidents than cyclists in our state (99 and 10, respectively). As long as this project continues, can the City consider renaming this project to indicate what it is – a protected bicycle lane project – rather than (mis)representing it as creating safety for all, which it is not?

The majority of bicyclists and scooterists are using the lanes as intended. Unfortunately, those who do not risk endangering themselves as well as pedestrians, other cyclists, and drivers when traveling outside the designated lanes whether in the street or on sidewalks, in the wrong direction, and when ignoring traffic signs. We have had to jump out of harm’s way too many times to count when using crosswalks or “Walk” signs on Mass Ave, Garden, Shepard, Raymond, Linnaean, and Follen Streets, because cyclists/scooterists neither stop nor yield. What are the City’s plans for communicating with bicyclists and scooterists about respecting pedestrian safety and heeding traffic signs?

Notably, only a handful of City Councillors have attended some of the in-person “listening sessions,” and our City Manager has not; it is not possible to discern who attends the Zoom sessions as a listener. The recent TPT report includes a statement to residents from City Manager Yi-An Huang, including the following:

The reality is that many people feel unheard, and there is a broader challenge about how we make decisions when people disagree….For the City’s part, I recognize that there is work to do to improve our communication, transparency, and responsiveness, and this is a priority for me.

Can the City Manager, in particular, describe his efforts to improve communication, transparency, and responsiveness about the Garden Street Safety Project?

  • The City’s commitment to the CSO and the Vision Zero initiatives are laudable, yet the City’s decisions to proceed have not all been transparent nor have been shared in a manner that invites public participation in decision-making. Cambridge residents have not voted directly on either of these initiatives, for example, but instead have voted for City Council candidates who share their broad philosophies and vision for the City. Can the City use a process like a ballot question or the Participatory Budgeting to ask residents about their priorities with respect to these two initiatives? In the most recent round of Participatory Budgeting, for example, we find it telling that none of the selected projects was focused on bicycle safety but instead on other priorities for residents.

Data collection/analysis

  • The recent TPT report indicates the TPT Department recognizes that the process could have been improved. It also indicates that the City will continue to collect data about implementation. Because so much of the city population adheres to an academic calendar, data collection from mid-December through the end of January is unlikely to be sufficient to provide a clear understanding of the impacts of the traffic changes. Can the City describe the planned data collection for the future? Will the City ensure that sufficient data are collected – on a range of days, times of day and times of year – to demonstrate to residents that their lived experiences of the effects of these changes are represented validly and reliably? We live on an affected street and are out-and-about several times a day most days of the year. There is great variation over time that does not appear to have been captured by the measurements to date.
  • The report presented information about average speeds on affected streets. However, information about averages alone is not sufficient – the distribution is also important to know because averages mask variation. The major speed issue isn’t about “average speed,” it’s about the faster speeds that many motorists – and frankly cyclists/scooterists, especially those with motorized devices – are achieving. As you consider expanding the amount of data collection over multiple days and times of day, please collect information on the entire distribution of speeds.
  • Selection of independent third-party urban planning/traffic management organization to collect/analyze data given talent in Cambridge. Governments are wise to contract with independent consultants to evaluate the effects of policy changes. Having the same people who implement the policy evaluate its effects does not provide the level of arms-length assessment needed given the felt impacts of these changes on residents. Will the city commit to a quality independent assessment of the impact of these changes?

Beth Gamse, bethgamse@gmail.com, 617-448-4860
Judith D. Singer, Judith_singer@harvard.edu, 617-999-4701
14 Walker St, Cambridge, MA 02138

November 5, 2022

Roads Scholars? – Notable Items on the Nov 7, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:18 am

Roads Scholars? – Notable Items on the Nov 7, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Apparently the quickest roads to City Hall right now are via Brattle Street and Garden Street. Here are the agenda items that drove me to comment:Penny Farthing

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to approval requested for an appointment of new members to the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) – Keisha Greaves, Robert Goss [three-year terms].
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-58 , regarding directing the appropriate City staff to establish a fund designed to assist those City employees in same-sex marriages with paying for surrogacy services. [City Solicitor’s response]
pulled by Simmons; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with a recommendation to adopt the Incentive Zoning Rate Study Petition, with clarifying changes.
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Petition 9-0

Lotsa Communications about bike lanes and the collateral damage of cut-through traffic caused by the City’s latest “engineering” solutions.

Order #1. Policy Order Regarding Traffic Flow on Garden Street.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Simmons, Carlone, Nolan, McGovern, Zondervan (proposes amendments), Mallon, Siddiqui, Toner (willing to acept amendments), Carlone, Azeem, Nolan, Simmons; Charter Right – Simmons

Order #2. Ban Turns on Red Citywide.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Mallon (who apparently advertised this proposal with the print and broadcast press), amendment proposed; comments by Azeem, Carlone, Zondervan, Toner (notes that Traffic Director already has authority to impose “No Turn on Red”), McGovern (notes Alewife Brook Pkwy at Rindge Ave. backups), Nolan, Simmons, Siddiqui; Mallon amendment passes 9-0; Amend to add McGovern, Zondervan, Nolan, Carlone as cosponsors passes 9-0; Nolan amendment (as further amended by Zondervan) passes 9-0; Order Adopted 7-2 [Simmons, Toner – NO]

Order #4. MBTA Pass [for City employees].   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Mallon; comments by Siddiqui, Mallon; Order Adopted 7-0-2 (Carlone, Toner – ABSENT)

Order #5. Roundtable on Broadband.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #6. Capital Projects Finance Meeting.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #7. Revised MBTA Bus Redesign.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Toner
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Simmons; Substitute Order Adopted 9-0 (this substitute was not made available to the public in any form)

Note: Rather than offer my usual comments this week, I instead spent my time Monday restoring my living room to a condition where I can now find and play all of my favorite CDs and vinyl records. Some things are just more important than Cambridge City Council meetings. – Robert Winters

September 19, 2022

Sloppy Seconds – September 19, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:33 pm

Sloppy Seconds – September 19, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Last week was the first City Council meeting for newly minted City Manager Yi-An Huang, and he’ll be back for seconds this week. Here’s a sampler from this week’s buffet:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Council Order No. O-13 of 9/12/22, regarding a report on a legal opinion on the following questions regarding Policy Order #11 (proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance) from the Sept 12, 2022 City Council meeting. [City Solicitor response]
pulled by Toner; Charter Right #3 brought forward 9-0 (the next time Mayor Siddiqui says “charterwritten” I may scream); Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #3. That the Ordinances of the City of Cambridge be amended as it relates to Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants. [Charter Right – Toner, Sept 12, 2022]
pulled by Toner; Council must declare an “emergency affecting the health and safety of the people of or their property” to justify rushing this amendment to a vote without going through passing to a 2nd Reading and waiting the requisite time prior to a vote; Emergency declared 9-0; Ordinance Amendment Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

As I said last week: There comes a point when repeated efforts to prop up and give advantages to certain cannabis operators becomes indistinguishable from political patronage. We have reached that point.

Charter Right #2. That the City Council refer the zoning petition regarding lab use to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for a hearing and report. [Charter Right – Toner, Sept 12, 2022]
Mayor Siddiqui again says “charterwritten”, Toner offers amendments but Zondervan is not interested; McGovern proposes sending Toner proposed amendments along with petition to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee, but this is not permissible; McGovern proposes Tabling both and taking up issues in Economic Development Committee and Long-Term Planning Committee; Toner hopes to discuss, delay for 6 months; Azeem agrees; Mallon agrees on Tabling; Tabled 9-0, Toner withdraws proposed amendments for now

Order #1. That the City Council refer the attached zoning petition regarding the Housing Contribution Rate to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for a hearing and report.   Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0; Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board

Lotsa-Listserv-Generated (LLG) Communications on the matter of proposed amendments to the Incentive Zoning Ordinance (Linkage Fee).

I’m not sure that there’s much to do this week other than to refer the lab restriction zoning petition to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board, but suffice to say that there are contrasts between the “command and control” approach of banning lab uses and the more economically enlightened view of adjusting incentives to promote alternatives. I also still don’t know how the City defines a “lab”.

On the Table #5. An application was received from Andy Layman representing Tasty Burger, requesting permission for three (3) projecting signs at the premises numbered 23 Prospect Street. approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutter. [Tabled – Sept 12, 2022]
pulled by McGovern; Order Adopted 7-2 (DC,PN – NO)

This may be small potatoes over tasty burgers, and I do have a fondness for signage, but there is a limit on just how many signs are really necessary to help Mr. J. Wellington Wimpy find his way to his favorite meal (for which he’ll gladly pay you Tuesday).

Wimpy
By the way, before there was the tall building at the corner, there used to be a hamburger joint (Wimpy).

Resolution #1. Resolution on the death of Elie Yarden.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons

I have know many “activists” over the years – some of whom have been very difficult people – but Elie Yarden was always thoughtful and kind to me even when our views were as different as different can be.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to convene a North Massachusetts Avenue Corridor District Zoning Proposal Working Group Policy Order Proposing a North Massachusetts Avenue (NMA) Corridor Working Group for the purpose of developing comprehensive zoning recommendations.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan
Pulled by Toner; Charter Right – Azeem

This is a very promising Order. I will note, however, that unlike the days of yore when CDD would study and process things to death before coming to any conclusions, they often now arrive with conclusions and simply run interference during any subsequent public process. Let’s hope this time is different.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with Councillors Azeem and Simmons on all necessary preparations for the next meeting in the discussion on potentially allowing multi-family housing to be built citywide.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

Generally speaking, allowing more flexibility in the kinds of residential housing that are permissible in any of the city’s residential zones is a good thing. I do worry, however, that this may just be the first step toward blenderizing Cambridge in the long term into just high density porridge. Personally, I like the fact that different parts of Cambridge have very different histories, densities, lot sizes, and residential patterns.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Transportation and Parking Department to convene a series of meetings with the Vision Zero, Pedestrian Committee, Bicycle Committee, the newly appointed Bicycling Advisory Committee, Cambridge Police Department, and any other departments deemed necessary, to review and revise the Cambridge Street Code.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
Pulled by Toner; Mallon substitute Order; Charter Right – Simmons

There was a time when cycling advocates would proudly display their “One Less Car” or “Share the Road” T-shirts. Those were the days of peace and love and peasant blouses. Now it’s Lycra and spandex and “War on Cars” and “Separated Bike Lanes”. I also remember when the City’s Traffic Department and the Transportation Folks in CDD would emphasize safe operation of bicycles. Somewhere along the road the emphasis shifted from safe operation and cooperation to segregation. Meanwhile, lots of newfangled “mobility devices” have emerged and safe operation seems like an afterthought. – Robert Winters

July 5, 2022

Amanda Phillips — more

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,Inman Square,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 10:13 pm

I have already published a post in this blog about the Amanda Phillips fatality in Inman Square.

Well, there’s more. Four things:

* The design of Inman Square at the time pushed bicyclists westbound on Cambridge Street bit by bit closer to the stream of motor traffic, unless they controlled the through lane when crossing the Square, or paused till traffic cleared so they could control it on exiting as shown in this video. Controlling the lane was the safe option here, but to adopt it, cyclists need to understand that defensive driving also often requires an assertive lane position.

* It is undisputed that Phillips struck the opening door of a parked vehicle, then fell under a truck just west of Inman Square.

* But, contrary to news reports, Phillips did not ride off the sidewalk — which would pin the blame on Phillips by charging her with  riding illegally on the sidewalk, and so she would have been visible only very briefly if the driver whose door she struck had checked his driver’s side mirror at just the right time.

* Video evidence which came out as the investigation was released was altered to make it appear that Phillips rode off the sidewalk, The video evidence revealed that she had been crossing Inman Square on Cambridge Street and was a fast, strong cyclist. She was not controlling the lane. Who altered the video, I do not know.

It’s been years since I reviewed the evidence and created the two videos. Since then, I have made several inquiries attempting to alert advocacy organizations and news media to what I found — to no avail.

I’ve had it with the silence, and I am going public with this information here.

Inman Square is being reconstructed, largely due to the need felt following the Phillips fatality. How the current redesign of Inman Square will play out, I don’t know. I need to return and check the completed project before I can draw conclusions.

March 25, 2022

Out Like a Lion – March 28, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,cycling,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:18 pm

Out Like a Lion – March 28, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Lion and the LambSpring is springing and the turf wars continue. This week features a citizens petition to modify the Bicycle Safety Ordinance and with it a golden opportunity for city councillors to double-talk their way to stardom. Here are some of the agenda items that I found interesting this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on COVID-19.
Placed on File

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-11, regarding Riverbend Park opening and potential expansion.
pulled by Nolan; likely will leave Mem. Drive closed continuously through weekend starting either Friday evening or Saturday morning; Placed on File

Charter Right #2. An application was received from Mathew Marshall, requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 221 Columbia Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No response has been received from the neighborhood association. “ [Charter Right – Simmons, Mar 21, 2022]
Interesting that the loss of one or two parking spaces at this location due to a curb cut gets so much pushback when elsewhere hundreds of parking spaces are being permanently removed for “quick build” bike lanes that impact businesses, health care providers, day care facilities, churches, and more.
Petition Denied (voice vote, but unanimous)

On the Table #3-9. Appointments and Reappointments to City Boards & Commissions on hold while City Council pipes in Muzak to appointees.

On the Table #10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Emergency Management Performance Grant from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency in the amount of $39,600 to the Grant Fund Fire Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used to support the purchase of a new vehicle for the Emergency Preparedness and Coordination office. [Charter Right – Nolan, Mar 7, 2022; Tabled – Mar 21, 2022]

Councillor Nolan continues her audition for Purchasing Agent.

Communications #3. A communication was received from Annette Osgood and Jeanne Oster, regarding a petition signed by over 1,050 names requesting changes to the Cycling Safety Ordinance.
pulled by Nolan; Placed on File (voice vote); Azeem notes that he would consider taking it up in Transportation Committee but makes clear now that nothing will come of it.

The actual number of petioners appears to be approximately 878 when duplicates are purged. There’s also the unhinged cyclist who wrote: “Fuck you disgusting pieces of shit Up yours cagers. I hope you and your cars burn.”

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft language to enable the Cambridge Police Department and Department of Public Works to donate abandoned bicycles to charitable organizations as outlined under MGL 30B Section 15(g).  Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted as Amended

Order #2. City Council support of the MIT Graduate Student Union.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted

Order #3. That City Council remind the residents of Cambridge that regular street cleaning begins again on April 1, 2022 and that all residents can sign up for automatic alerts and reminders from the City of Cambridge for the remainder of the year.   Councillor Toner
Order Adopted

Order #4. City Council support urging the Massachusetts Legislature and the residents of Cambridge to oppose House Bill 1234 and the proposed 2022 state ballot initiative and ensuring that the rights of workers remain solid and strong for generations to come.   Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted as Amended

My favorite phrase in this Order: “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts enjoys a long and distinguished history in the fight for workers’ rights and protections from exploitation from capitalists and corporate interests…”. Alas, life in The Peoples Republik.

Also, there are these Budget Hearings now scheduled in the Merry Month of May:

Tues, May 10

9:00am   The City Council’s Finance Committee will meet to conduct hearing on FY 2023 City Budget.  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

Budget Overview
Mayor’s Office
Executive – Leadership
Executive – Housing Liaison    
Executive – Diversity
Executive – DGVPI
Executive – Equity and Inclusion    
Public Information Office
Tourism		 Housing Liasson    
City Council
City Clerk
Law
Finance Admin.
Budget
Personnel
Purchasing
Auditing		 Assessing
Treasury/Revenue
Information Technology    
General Services
Employee Benefits
Election Commission
Public Celebrations
Reserve
Animal Commission		 Community Safety (new)
Fire Department
Police Department
Traffic, Parking & Transportation
Inspectional Services
License Commission
Electrical
Emergency Communications

Wed, May 11

6:00pm   The City Council’s Finance Committee will meet to conduct hearing on FY 2023 School Budget.  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

Tues, May 17

10:00am   The City Council’s Finance Committee will meet to conduct hearing on FY 2023 City Budget.  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

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

Thurs, May 19

9:00am   The City Council’s Finance Committee will meet to conduct hearing on FY 2023 City Budget (if needed).  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

March 1, 2022

Cambridge’s Bike Lane Mandate Hurts Us All – by John Pitkin

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,cycling,transportation — Tags: , , , , , — John Pitkin @ 11:57 am

An op-ed by former City Councillor Jen Devereux in Cambridge Day belittles the growing opposition of residents to Cambridge’s bike lane mandate. She likens it to a conspiracy about a word game, castigates opponents’ “sky-is-falling rhetoric,” and admonishes them with therapeutic advice that, “feelings are not facts and emotions are not truth.”

Her call for a return to norms and an end to what she terms the “bike wars” rings hollow because she ends her piece with a reminder that two people have been “killed by drivers” in Porter Square since 2016. This strikes me as ironic, since the “bike wars” she laments were touched off by cycle advocates’ using two 2016 cyclist fatalities as a rhetorical battering ram to advance new cycle lanes in Inman Square, Cambridge Street and Brattle Street.

Organized cycle advocates d/b/a Cambridge Bike Safety used this emotional appeal to shut down debate and short-circuit consideration of financial, environmental and social costs as well as alternative means to improve safety for all. Those who voiced objections were even labeled “killers” by association with the unfortunate and, by all accounts, blameless drivers in the fatal crashes.

It is said that “Truth is the first casualty of war.” The same can be said of our “bike wars.” Facts are rarely checked and only valued for their emotional impact or clickability, and the arguments or interests of opponents are dismissed out of hand..

If we want to move forward from this situation a good first step would be to see it not as a “war” but a “social dysfunction,” not zingers flying between partisans, but the equivalent of a heart attack of endemic mistrust in our body politic. It affects everyone and harms us all, because if we don’t trust each other, if we don’t trust our government, we won’t be able to act with the unity we need to meet the existential threats of climate change or the immediate needs of our community. We have to figure out how to work together on common solutions to critical problems, and the bike lane disputes are a distraction from the real work that must be done.

Trust cannot be restored by City Councillors tut-tutting citizens for voicing concerns about the bike lanes when the actual impacts become apparent. Indeed City Council created the current civic mess by not involving the very people – the body politic – that they represent.

The contentious discourse and public debate that Ms. Devereux bemoans could and should have taken place before the mandates in the Cycling Safety Ordinance were enacted in 2019 and strengthened in 2020. She acknowledges that “parking is the third rail of politics.” Other City Councillors must also know. Yet to this day the majority of the City Council as well as City administrators play down the scope of the bike lane mandate, branding them as benign “bicycle safety improvements.” And obligatory public notices of community meetings and installation of new bike lanes were utterly ineffective, leaving most residents and business owners in the dark until the eve of installation.

But now the truth is coming out that the Bike Lane Mandate is a big deal. It touches the “third rail” of parking. And the City Council’s defective process has created a giant mess.

The mandated lanes comprise a 26 mile network, covering 10% of Cambridge’s public streets, including Mass. Avenue and other major arteries, and must be completed or in construction by 2026.

It will mean removing many hundreds of parking spaces, in some areas half or all of the parking, as well as loading zones needed for deliveries to and pickups from businesses. Costs are not known but will be substantial. Engineering services alone for the first Quick-Build lanes, not including implementation, have averaged $160 thousand per mile.  The full design and build of just one major intersection, Inman Square, is budgeted to cost close to $10 million.

The financial impacts on local businesses are not known because the City has not asked the affected businesses.  In places were parking has already been removed some business owners report that their revenues have dropped 45%.  A parking access and loading zones are removed over time, there are reasonable fears that commercial dead zones will spread to sections of Mass. Avenue, Cambridge Street and Huron Avenue where there are now thriving, diverse shopping districts.

Thousands of residents who rely on street parking and access to homes, necessary services, and local shops will also be adversely impacted.

The scope of the Bike Lane Mandate is so broad and complex that the City Council might reasonably have put it on the ballot for residents to vote on in a municipal referendum before acting on it. Instead, the City Council passed the mandate after limited public discussion and debate and deputized the Director of Transportation, Traffic and Parking to inform the affected residents and owners in community meetings of what “cycling safety” means for them.

Now that citizens more clearly understand the grand plan and how it affects them, we are starting to see the beginnings of the kind of vigorous, contentious, factual debate that is needed for democracy to work and that we as Americans expect. These stirrings should not be discouraged or tamped down, but rather welcomed as a hopeful beginning of the civil discourse we urgently need to build trust in one other and strengthen our community.

John Pitkin
18 Fayette Street
Cambridge, MA 02139

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress