Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 6, 2020

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 473-474: October 6, 2020

Episode 473 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 6, 2020 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:10pm. Topics: Topics from Oct 5 City Council meeting; AHO; Cycling Safety Ordinance; Cambridge Bicycle Plan; Bus-Only Lanes; Shared Streets; Blowfish; Coronagendas; bar/restaurant closures. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 474 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 6, 2020 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:30pm. Topics: Topics from Oct 5 City Council meeting; police alternatives; “Defund Police” vs. promote best practices; Charter Review; 80-year track record for Plan E; City Councillor job description. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 5, 2020

What’s on the October 5, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda? Taxes! Revolution! Cannabis!

What’s on the October 5, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda? Taxes! Revolution! Cannabis!

Here’s my grab bag of agenda items that will see some action or which seem either interesting or ridiculous or otherwise noteworthy.

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2021. [Manager’s Letter]
13 Orders Adopted 9-0

There are so many statistics you could look at when comparing things over the years, but here are a few:

Year Property Tax Levy Annual
Increase
Residential
Tax Rate
(per $1000)
Commercial
Tax Rate
(per $1000)
Ratio
(Comm/Res)
Median
Tax
(single)
Median
Tax
(condo)
Median
Tax
(2-fam)
Median
Tax
(3-fam)
FY2021 $472,520,148 7.85% $5.85 $11.85 2.03 $5,761 $1,608 $5,471 $6,711
FY2020 $438,128,694 6.91% $5.75 $12.68 2.21 $5,515 $1,605 $5,340 $6,493
FY2019 $409,809,861 5.33% $5.94 $13.71 2.31 $5,066 $1,562 $4,974 $6,124
FY2018 $389,080,359 4.40% $6.29 $14.81 2.35 $4,942 $1,541 $4,682 $5,655
FY2017 $372,674,087 5.15% $6.49 $16.12 2.48 $4,806 $1,465 $4,649 $5,594
FY2016 $354,430,753 3.80% $6.99 $17.71 2.53 $4,482 $1,454 $4,412 $5,258
FY2015 $341,445,455 3.93% $7.82 $19.29 2.47 $4,418 $1,472 $4,310 $5,040
FY2014 $328,544,945 3.66% $8.38 $20.44 2.44 $4,407 $1,457 $3,976 $4,787
FY2013 $316,947,770 5.97% $8.66 $21.50 2.48 $4,298 $1,495 $3,866 $4,586
FY2012 $299,090,641 5.33% $8.48 $20.76 2.45 $4,139 $1,430 $3,786 $4,501
FY2011 $283,961,699 5.69% $8.16 $19.90 2.44 $3,870 $1,370 $3,609 $4,286
FY2010 $268,662,984 5.38% $7.72 $18.75 2.43 $3,564 $1,293 $3,477 $4,132
FY2009 $254,945,578 5.20% $7.56 $17.97 2.38 $3,445 $1,224 $3,430 $4,091

While it’s noteworthy that the 7.85% increase in the property tax levy is very high, it needs to be emphasized that this is only after leaving 125 positions vacant (which allows for an FY21 budget rescission of $5 million), the allocation of $24.5 million from reserve accounts to reduce the levy, and other measures.Real Estate Tax House

It’s also worth emphasizing that property taxes this fiscal year are based on assessed property values as of Jan 1, 2020 – before the pandemic rolled into town. Many commercial properties are now generating considerably less income and that may be reflected in lower assessed property values come Jan 1, 2020. We have for a long time been taking full advantage of the property tax classification and the ability to set different tax rates for commercial vs. residential properties (within legal limits). This has allowed Cambridge to keep residential property taxes in check. If commercial values slip, it is quite likely that a considerable amount of the tax burden will shift to residential properties. The Manager’s message alludes to this: “It is also important to recognize that a healthy balance of development between residential and commercial be continued to ensure homeowner’s real estate taxes remain affordable.”

I strongly recommend that you read the entire Tax Rate letter from the City Manager and think about what next year’s letter may say if the pandemic continues to takes its economic toll.


Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the Net Zero Action Plan Task Force for a term of nine-months.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #12. That the Council go on record supporting the passage of S.2500 and H.4933 and to support the inclusion of the following in the final bill: 1) The development of a net zero stretch code by DOER (S.2500, § 30-31, 54) 2) The consideration of geographically diverse communities, including low-income communities, in the development of a net zero stretch code (S.2500, § 54) 3) The increase in membership and the establishment of term limits for the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (H.4933, § 15A-F).   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1

Committee Report #1. A report of the Ordinance Committee Meeting held on Aug 26, 2020 regarding Green Energy Analysis Zoning Amendments. [minutes have not yet been posted]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Rah, Rah, Rah for environmental initiatives! It’s worth noting, however, that energy efficiency usually translates into cost savings in the long run – and many homeowners and developers will incorporate energy efficiency into their homes and projects regardless of any mandates from state and local government. Carrots work better than sticks.

I’ll be soon taking advantage of a free (or at least reduced cost) insulation program in my house, but not because a few city councillors are twisting my arm to do it. I have some serious concerns about layering one mandate on top of another so that at some point a homeowner may simply delay repairs and renovations because of the added costs and restrictions. But I’m sure the councillors will feel perfectly righteous.


Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-26, regarding a report on placing four little free libraries.
Placed on File 9-0

“Liberation Libraries” – Perhaps this will start a trend of topic-specific “little free libraries” around the city. I could start a “little free math library” or maybe a “cosmology corner”. It would help me reduce the weight of books in my house. Now that would be another kind of liberation.


Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-47, regarding a report on heat lamps and outdoor dining during the COVID-19 public health crisis.
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response to City Council request at the Special Meeting relative to COVID-19 Update of Sept 29, 2020, to provide opinions on the question of eviction moratoria applicability.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the Public Health Department and the Law Department to amend Cambridge’s Moratorium on Eviction Enforcement to make clear that it remains in effect after October 17 and until at least the end of the state of emergency is declared.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 8-0-1

Leave it to the good folks of the Central Square Business Improvement District to lead the charge in arranging for heat lamps to give local restaurants an extra tool to help them survive the Covid assault on businesses further into the colder weather months. Big thanks to some particular heros in the City administration (you know who you are) for helping to ease the bureaucratic burdens.

Regarding the matter of moratoriums on evictions and the relationship between commercial and residential landlords and their tenants, there is so much that has gone on out of the public eye in terms of rent forgiveness, renegotiated leases, and deferred rent that the politicians either fail to see or refuse to recognize. To them, it’s like that Rahm Emanuel quote: “Never allow a good crisis go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do the things you once thought were impossible.” Whether it’s using a shared street to execute mode shifts or fast-track your bicycle plans; or using the threat of a “tsunami of evictions” to attempt to reinstitute rent controls; or perhaps even using economic hardship to pursue your anti-capitalist agenda, there’s nothing like a good crisis to grease your political axles.


Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-41, regarding a report on the feasibility of an alternative Public Safety Crisis Response System.
Placed on File 9-0

Given the choice between listening to a bunch of sheeplike “Defund the Police” activists or reading a well-reasoned response from Police Commissioner Bard and other expert City staff, I’ll choose the latter any day of the week.


Unfinished Business #3. That the “2020 Cycling Safety Ordinance” be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for discussion and recommendation. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL SEPT 14, 2020. TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER OCT 5, 2020] [Final Amended Text of Ordinance]
Ordained as Amended 7-1-0-1 (Toomey – NO, Simmons – PRESENT)

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, regarding the Cycling Safety Ordinance.
Placed on File 9-0

I am convinced that the mandatory aspects of this Ordinance are not legally enforceable – though I’m sure that the City administration will carry out most of it nonetheless. It’s one thing to lay out your vision for reconfiguring roads for better safety, but micromanaging the City Manager and City departments is another thing altogether. Then again, I suppose if there were 5 city councillors who wanted to pass a municipal ordinance requiring candy-striped streets, they could pass the ordinance and then screech at the Manager and threaten to not renew his contract for having used less-distracting road materials.


Unfinished Business #4. 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition 2020. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL SEPT 14, 2020. TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER OCT 5, 2020] [Final Text of Ordinance]
Ordained 7-2 (Carlone, Nolan – NO)

This will be ordained, of course, but that doesn’t make it any less of an offensive cross between an eminent-domain taking and an ideological agenda to relentlessly shift residential properties from private ownership toward public and quasi-public ownership that will forevermore rely on taxpayer support for maintaining these properties in perpetuity.


Order #3. That the Council go on record requesting the Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack consider an I-90 lane reduction and at-grade design during the final decision-making process.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 8-0-1

A viaduct or an at-grade multi-lane highway are both barriers. I’m far more interested in the peripheral aspects of this project (like a better-connected road and path network and better) than about the number of lanes or whether a portion remains elevated.


Order #4. That the Cambridge City Council adopt the following amendments to Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Ordinances of the City of Cambridge entitled “CANNABIS BUSINESS PERMITTING”.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-0-1

Order #8. Cannabis Delivery-Only Zoning Ordinance.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-0-1

Doesn’t it seem like this City Council and the previous City Council care more about cannabis than just about anything else? Perhaps they need an intervention.


Order #9. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Cambridge Historical Commission and other relevant City Departments to ensure that any report or recommendation for a new Neighborhood Conservation District in Cambridge presented to the City Council include an analysis of the potential effects on City housing affordability based on current research, as well as any mitigations that the Cambridge Historical Commission recommends, so that the City Council may holistically evaluate the matter.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui
Charter Right – Carlone

One of the more bizarre aspects of this City Council is their tendency to simply absorb the rhetoric of their activist handlers without questioning the validity of their gripes. The latest talking point among the YIMBY crowd is that historic presevation is fundamentally racist or elitist or profit-driven and that any effort to preserve some of the more endearing qualities of your neighborhood makes you evil incarnate.

The current case involves some East Cambridge residents who would prefer to not see their particular brand of very dense neighborhood wiped clean in favor of large ugly boxes. Given the choice between closely-spaced two-family homes with grape arbors and tomato plants versus a boring box of a building with a concierge, I’ll choose the former. In terms of affordability, those old Italian ladies and gentlemen of East Cambridge have done more to provide housing at affordable rents for generations than any of the vultures now circling.


Order #10. That the City Council go on record supporting the Roe Act and restate its commitment to the protection of abortion rights, reproductive health care rights, and individuals’ rights to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 8-0-1

I try to pay as little attention as possible to what goes on in Washington, DC. I do, however, understand that if family planning access becomes no longer guaranteed across the country, it will be very important for individual states to provide such guarantees in whatever manner is consistent with the needs and wishes of its residents.


Order #13. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Transportation Department and Solicitor to provide the City with an update on the progress toward a draft [Truck Safety] Ordinance as soon as possible and with the draft of an Ordinance by Oct 19, 2020.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted 7-0-2

One of the things I remember from decades ago is that federal jurisdiction in interstate commerce is pretty serious business and that regulating truck traffic is not easy. You can put restrictions and make safety improvements on your own vehicles and perhaps those of companies with whom you have contracts, but just about everything else will require endless studies and viable alternatives that won’t be challenged in court. – Robert Winters

March 15, 2020

Is This an Essential Public Meeting? – March 16, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda Items

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:21 pm

Is This an Essential Public Meeting? – March 16, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda Items

City HallI will not be attending this meeting even if it goes forward on schedule. Whether or not the City comes up with some mechanism for public input relating to what would otherwise be public meetings, the simple truth is that it will be inadequate; and any city councillor who chooses to push any significant public policy agenda unrelated to the current emergency or basic maintenance of city affairs should reconsider his or her priorities/ethics. Now if this meeting actually does go forward as scheduled, here are some of the agenda items of significance:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-20, regarding a response on coronavirus preparedness.

Order #1. Coronavirus mitigation.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Councillor E. Denise Simmons transmitting Coronavirus Preparation.

Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to take all necessary actions to protect the population, including, but not limited to, cancelling all non-essential events and gatherings, allowing staff to work from home when possible, providing visitor screening at senior living facilities, and preparing emergency medical facilities for treating respiratory infections.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui regarding COVID-19 Student Supports and Resources List.

These are the only agenda items that should even be addressed at this meeting.


Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $4,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support the Complete Streets Reconstruction Program and for repaving portions of streets that are part of the separated bicycle network.

Order #2. That the “2020 Cycling Safety Ordinance” be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for discussion and recommendation.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, transmitting comments on the 2020 Cycling Safety Ordinance.

Other than the expenditure for street repaving, none of these significant matters should be forwarded at this time. Many of the people who could be adversely impacted will simply not be willing to come to a public meeting at this time. In addition, any gathering of 25 or more people is prohibited under the current state of emergency.


Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $7,250,000 for the reconstruction of Glacken Field and playground with an update on lighting. This is also in response to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-17.

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-66, regarding establishing a Young Adult Civic Unity Committee.

Glad to hear it.

Unfinished Business #3. That section 11.202(b) of Article 11.000, entitled SPECIAL REGULATIONS, of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge, be amended the table as follows: Jan 28, 2020 (Annual Adjustment) $19.10 per square foot (amended to $20.10) [Passed to a 2nd Reading on Feb 24, 2020, to be Ordained on or after Mar 8, 2020.]

If the inclination is to ordain this now, just do it and adjourn.

Applications & Petitions #2. A Zoning Petition has been received from Salvatore Zinno Vice President, BMR-Third LLC, to Amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance by adding section 13.200 Planned Unit Development at Canal District Kendall PUD-CDK Amendment.

Applications & Petitions #5. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Tom Hartingson, requesting that the City Council Ordain the Zoning language set forth relative to the Alewife Quadrangle Northwest Overlay District.

I personally welcome both of these zoning petitions (though I have yet not reviewed all the details), but they can be referred and action delayed for the time being.

Order #3. That the City Council approve a Real Estate Transfer Fee Home Rule Petition.   Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler

There are competing bills in the state legislature. There are significant details yet to be worked out.

Order #4. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Inspectional Service Department to increase the fines for absentee property owners who continue to have violations stemming for rodent infestations.   Councillor Toomey

I’m still interested in the previous Council order that called for negligent property owners to cover some of the costs of neighbors impacted by rodent infestations.

Order #5. That the City Council go on record stating its intent to have Cambridge be one of the pilot communities if Senate Bill 2553 passes.   Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone

This is a pilot program of automated traffic enforcement, i.e. cameras catching drivers running red lights and committing other infractions. I’m just curious how this will fit into the current campaign against surveillance technologies. – Robert Winters

August 14, 2018

Tight spot on Huron Avenue

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , — jsallen @ 1:01 pm

I am expanding here on comments which I made on a post in the Cambridge Bikes Facebook group.

The overhead view from the post shows a stretch of Huron Avenue near Sparks Street.

Huron Avenue and Sparks Street, Cambiridge, Massachusetts

Huron Avenue and Sparks Street

I see here a retrofit to a car-centric street design in an attempt to accommodate bicyclists of all ages and abilities, a popular goal of bicycling advocacy.

This stretch is downhill right to left in the overhead view. A common explanation for the buffer (diagonally-striped area) to the left of the bike lane is that it is to protect cyclists from overtaking motorists — but it places the bike lane in the door zone. A bike lane in the door zone is unsafe for any bicyclists, but it is worse here. Motorists don’t have x-ray vision. A look in the driver’s side mirror won’t show a bicyclist until rather late on a right-hand curve: bicyclists are hidden by the parked cars behind. Bicyclists can travel as fast or nearly as fast as cars here, also worsening the dooring hazard. and do best to merge out and ride in the stream of motor traffic. This also improves sight distance for motorists who might (horrors!) have to slow a little to follow a bicyclist.

On the other side of the street, the bike lane leads bicyclists into the right-hook zone at Sparks Street in the expectation that all right-turning motorists will yield. The green-painted crossing is an attempt to accommodate bicyclists who do not check for traffic behind them, whether due to lack of skill, a stiff neck, inattention or misplaced trust. But, not all motorists yield. A bicyclist needs to be extra careful here, casting a look over the shoulder, and preferably merging left to block a right-turning motorist or let that motorist pass on the right.

Is it actually possible to design safely for all ages and abilities here? A speed hump could help by slowing motor traffic. Removing parking spaces would make a big improvement, but parking spaces are sacred to residents and business owners, and illegal parking (as in the bike lane on the south side) is tolerated as a minor sin. Moving the legal parking to the uphill, soutth side, would reduce the dooring risk. On the south side, bicyclist are traveling more slowly and sight lines are better.

But above all, a major change in motorists’ behavior is needed — a cultural change: reduction in speed, and respect for bicyclists who safely far enough from the parked vehicles to avoid dooring. Attempting to bring about bicycling accessible to people of all ages and abilities using paint first, without the public will to step up enforcement, gets things backwards. In the mean time, children might ride slowly on the sidewalk, but grownups do best to use defensive driving techniques, as I have described.  The major motorist behavior change can be expected (with autonomous vehicles) — in a decade or three.  If  shared use becomes dominant with motor vehicles, there also will be less need for parking spaces and that would be good too.

March 14, 2018

The Marcia Deihl bicycling fatality

Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley has obtained a copy of the crash reconstruction report in Marcia Deihl’s fatal collision with a truck on March 1, 2015, and posted the report online. I thank Mr. Kelley for performing this public service.

My understanding is that a Freedom of Information Act request was necessary to obtain a copy. That is not as it should be. The public needs to know the how and why of crashes, to avoid them and guide policy.

Quick summary: Deihl rode out of the driveway on Putnam Avenue from Whole Foods, collided with the front bumper of the truck, which was headed east in the lane closest to the driveway, and went under its front wheels. Here. You can see the ghost bike in the image. (It is before the driveway but the crash occurred at or after the driveway.)

Half-trigger warning: this post isn’t relaxing reading and neither is the report, but they don’t include any gruesome images, or except for the last few pages or the report, descriptions more graphic than what you have just read.

So, what about the report?

Unfortunately, the investigation leaves questions unanswered, which it might have answered. Only in the synopsis at the start of the report does the State Police investigator repeat part of the report of Cambridge Officer Sullivan who interviewed the truck driver at the scene. Sullivan’s report says that the driver “checked to his right but didn’t see anything but snow so he started to pull over. He stated as he was pulling over he started to put on his hazard lights. He felt a bump and thought he ran over a snow bank.” He also said that he was pulling over to park and then walk to a construction site to see if it was ready for the dumpster he was carrying.

The report doesn’t raise, or answer, the question whether the driver was looking ahead prior to pulling over, as he was approaching the driveway. There was also no discussion of the role that snowbanks might have played in blocking sight lines. You will probably recall that the winter of 2015 was the snowiest one ever recorded in the Boston area. 94.4 inches had fallen from Jan. 24 through Feb. 22, 2015.

Deihl pulled out of the driveway either just as the truck was passing, or she passed it. The initial point of impact was the front of the truck and — as identified by a GPS recorder in the truck — it was going only 5 mph at that point (slowing to a stop).

One thing that calls out to me in the report is the intensive examination of the truck but cursory examination of the bicycle (p. 12 of the PDF, p. 7 of the report). What if, for example, Deihl’s brakes had failed? Were the steel rims of Deihl’s old English three-speed bicycle wet? Steel rims are as slippery as ice when wet, and rim brakes barely work then. The temperature reached 30 F on the day of the crash, which occurred at 3 PM, but snowmelt might have wetted the rims. Or did the bicycle have a coaster brake, in which case wet rims wouldn’t have been an issue? Did Deihl skid on packed snow or ice? Also the autopsy report is rather perfunctory. Medical condition leading to loss of control? — last page of the PDF. “Bicyclist rideout” crashes like this one are rare after childhood, suggesting to me that something unusual went wrong.

The key to this crash would seem to be why Deihl came out of the driveway and collided with the truck, rather than stopping to let it pass. But the trucker also pulled over to the right — Deihl may have turned right assuming that the truck would clear her. — page 9 of the PDF.

Deihl was required under the law to yield to traffic in the street before entering it from a driveway. If she pulled out of the driveway ahead of the truck, the trucker could have prevented the crash as long as it was not too late for him to avoid the collision by braking or swerving. He was at fault if he failed to look. If Deihl was passing him on the right, she would have been close to the side of the truck and probably in its right-side blind spot. And sight lines may have been blocked by a snowbank.

It’s incredibly frustrating that:

  1. The investigator didn’t know what he is doing in a bicycle investigation (scenario repeated with the Anita Kurmann fatality in Boston later the same year);
  2. It took a FOIA request to see the report;
  3. Advocates use these tragedies to justify whatever pet projects they have. (Sideguards, says Alex Epstein. They would be irrelevant in this collision with the front of a truck: more about them here. Separate bike traffic from car traffic, says Pete Stidman. Just how would a sidepath have worked on a day when the street was lined with snowbanks is another valid question. Most likely, it would not have been usable. Comments by Epstein and Stidman are here. Neither of them had seen the report when they made their observations.)
  4. Advocates are avoiding adequately informing bicyclists about the hazards of trucks and how to avoid them.

Well, the advocates at the American Bicycling Education Association are an important exception. I am proud to be an instructor in its program. An animated graphic on safety around trucks is here and if you click on the title at the top of the page, you can find out how to sign up for a course (online or in person) which will cover that topic and much more.

I thank Paul Schimek for many of the observations in this post, and for drawing my attention to the availability of the crash report.

And again, I thank Craig Kelley for making the report available.

February 16, 2018

A look at the Brattle Street bikeway

In 2017, Cambridge installed a two-way separated bikeway on Brattle Street between Mason Street and Brattle Square. In the video here, I take a look at part of that bikeway, from Church Street to Brattle Square.

This is a high-definition video. For best viewing, start the video playing, click on “Youtube”, and then click on the Full Screen Icon — the square at the lower right.

September 25, 2017

Preview of Sept 25, 2017 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:28 am

Preview of Sept 25, 2017 Cambridge City Council meeting

City HallHere are the items that drew my attention this week:

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 17-55 and 17-64, regarding an update on Bicycle Lane Implementation and Outreach.

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of 17 persons as a members of the Pedestrian Committee for a term of two years.

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of 18 persons as a members of the Bicycle Committee for a term of two years.

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of 20 persons as a members of the Transit Committee.

While I’m glad to see all of these appointments and reappointments to these volunteer committees, there is an important point that needs to be stated. These are ADVISORY committees. They consist of a lot of really dedicated people who put a lot of time and thought into their committee work, and we are grateful for their service. However, recommendations from these or any other advisory committees should never be the final word. City staff and ultimately the elected officials bear that responsibility, especially when a committee consists primarily, if not exclusively, of advocates for a single point of view. Do members of the Bicycle Committee take into account the needs of all residents and others who need to travel through the city? Do they factor in all four seasons? Are the needs of delivery vehicles taken into account? What happens when what is ideal for transit users is in conflict with a proposal from the Bicycle Committee? What happens when the needs of residents and local businesses conflict with the demands of a subset of cycling advocates?

I served on the Recycling Advisory Committee for two decades. During that time I always tried to evaluate any proposals from the point of view of all residents – and not just the most zealous recycling advocates. I’m not at all convinced that this is done in some of these other advisory committees. In fact, I honestly believe that anyone with a contrary view would never even be appointed to the Bicycle Committee.

One day the Envision Cambridge consultants, its associated Advisory Committee (of which I am a member), and City staff will issue its recommendations and hopefully lay out a workable vision for city planning for the near future and the long term. Should the City Council adopt those recommendations without debate? Will modifications to the plan be forbidden? Of course not. When the Recycling Advisory Committee offered recommendations they were rarely accepted without question.

Nonetheless, as Mr. Barr’s report spells out, the Cambridge Bicycle Plan "lays out a vision for where the City intends to implement bicycle facilities in the future". Did the Cambridge City Council ever really analyze that plan? Was any of it open to revision or negotiation? Or was it just accepted as a non-negotiable plan for the sake of political expedience? Does it address actual safety or is it primarily about "comfort", convenience, and "turf"? Most importantly, was any effort ever expended to balance the needs of all road users?

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-30, regarding a report on partnering with DCR and the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association to revitalize Magazine Beach.

I’m grateful to all of the people who are helping to transform this space into something great.

Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an amendment to the Foundry Demonstration Project Plan.

How many years has it been now?

Manager’s Agenda #15. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Community Preservation Act (CPA) recommendations for FY2018. [Attachments]

No surprises here – the legal maximum of 80% for subsidized/regulated housing, and the legal minimum of 10% each for open space acquisition and historic preservation.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the Law Department, the Community Development Department, and any other appropriate City departments to update the City Council on what is being done to address the Council’s request for actions on vacant and abandoned buildings.   Councillor Devereux

There are plenty of good steps that can be taken, but the City Council needs to start by rethinking their earlier non-starter proposal that would have levied fines so steep that any court on the planet would recognize it as a regulatory taking. They can also try working with these property ownerts to bring about best outcomes.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the Information Technology Department and other appropriate City personnel and report back to the City Council on the effectiveness of the SeeClickFix system.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern

The system works well in some ways, but it really depends a lot on which department is responding. It has also degenerated in some ways into a vehicle for advocacy where some users flood the system just to push their point of view. – Robert Winters

April 20, 2017

Sheet of ice draws praise from bicycle advocates

Snowmelt drains across "protected" bikeway on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

Snowmelt drains across “protected” bikeway on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

OK, spring is around the corner, so I’m a bit late with this post. But the issue I describe here will occur every year, at least until global warming puts an end to snows or converts central Cambridge into an extension of Boston Harbor.

The headline of the February 17 Boston Globe article with this picture is “Snowbank becomes accidental hero for area cyclists”.

The shiny area in the bikeway is meltwater from said snowbank. When the temperature drops below freezing, the meltwater becomes a sheet of black ice. This problem is unavoidable with a street-level barrier-separated bikeway. I discussed it at length years ago in connection with the 9th Avenue bikeway in Manhattan, a bikeway which, on the other hand, I have some nice things to say about.

Neither Steve Annear, author of the article, nor anyone quoted in it, makes any mention of the black-ice problem.

From the article: “’I like this snowbank-protected cycle track,’ Ari Ofsevit, a local cyclist, said on Twitter.” Ari usually ranges widely, imaginatively and thoughtfully in discussing transportation improvements his blog. I usually agree with him, but not in this case.

The article cites Joe Barr, of the City of Cambridge:

Barr acknowledged that the snow mound separating the bike lane and the road has offered a sense of protection to cyclists, but he said it could also be masking damage to the base of the flexible posts.

“We won’t know that until we get some more melting. But it certainly looks good on the street,” he said.

And Richard Fries, Executive Director of Massbike, commented: “It’s great. It won’t last that much longer, but it does help to hammer into people’s heads [road] patterns and driving habits,” he said. “Because it’s there, it makes the existing bike lane more visible to drivers and more prominent.”

Segregation promotes a sense of entitlement on the part of the majority group –in this case, motorists. How do I explain to horn-honking motorists that I have to ride in “their” travel lane, now narrowed to make room for the barrier, to avoid crashing on a sheet of black ice?

Or for that matter, to progress at my usual 15 miles per hour so I’m not stuck behind a cluster of bicyclists who are traveling at 8 miles per hour?

Or to avoid being right-hooked and crushed under the back wheels by a right-turning truck at Douglass Street?

Or that the rear-end collisions that this installation protects against are vanishingly rare on urban streets?

Or that parallel Harvard Street, Green Street and Franklin Street would serve admirably as low-stress through bicycle routes, if the city made the right kind of improvements?

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress