Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 18, 2013

Evacuation Day at City Hall – March 18 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:57 am

Evacuation Day at City Hall – March 18 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Here are what seem to be the highlights for this Monday’s City Council meeting grouped by topic:

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Planning Board for 3-year terms effective Mar 13, 2013:
Tom Sieniewicz (Full Member)
Steven Cohen (Full Member)
Catherine Preston Connolly (Associate Member)

Resolution #15. Thanks to Thomas W. Anninger for his years of service as a member of the Cambridge Planning Board.   Councillor Maher

Though the Planning Board has been short a few members lately, it’s been functioning like a well-oiled machine. Tom Anninger’s exit from the Board is a real loss, but the newly appointed members appear to be very qualified and should prove to be excellent additions. They’ll arrive just in time for some serious discussions about possible plans for Central Square and other areas that were part of the recent K2C2 study. It is noteworthy that the recent January 7 Order #4 strongly urged the City Manager to fill the two vacancies on the Planning Board with people "who have a background in, or association with, the skilled labor and building trades." None of the three appointees seem to fit that description, and that’s probably a good thing.

Manager’s Agenda #16. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2013 and ending Mar 31, 2014.

City Manager Order
Agenda Item No. 16A     Mar 18, 2013
ORDERED: That the following block rate for water consumption and sewer use in the City of Cambridge be in effect for the period beginning Apr 1, 2013 and ending Mar 31, 2014.

  Annual Consumption* FY13
Water Rate		 FY14 Proposed
Water Rate		 FY13
Sewer Rate		 FY14 Proposed
Sewer Rate
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF $3.02 $3.02 $7.86 $8.19
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF $3.24 $3.24 $8.32 $8.67
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF $3.44 $3.44 $8.93 $9.31
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF $3.65 $3.65 $9.62 $10.02
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF $3.96 $3.96 $10.23 $10.66

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons; and be it further

This marks the 4th straight year for these water rates, i.e. no increases for three years from the level set for FY11. This is the first increase in the sewer rate after two consecutive years of no increases.

Manager’s Agenda #17. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the MIT-Kendall Square Zoning Petition.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 26, 2013 to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss the built form, including FAR, Height, Footplates, Open Space and Parking.

Committee Report #6. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Mar 7, 2013 to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss Uses, Incentive Zoning, Community Fund, Housing and Sustainability. A presentation will be made by the Executive Director of Historical Commission on historic building.

Order #11. That a one-time suspension of Council Rule 23B be allowed, for the broadcast of the Fri, Mar 22nd, 9:30am Ordinance Committee Meeting (a meeting to discuss issues relating to the MIT PUD-5 zoning petition).   Councillor vanBeuzekom

As a group, these are probably the most significant items on the agenda. The Council will most likely pass the MIT/Kendall petition to a 2nd Reading in order to get it in the queue for possible ordination in a few weeks. The Ordinance Committee is still deliberating the issue, and it will surprise no one if there are additional tweaks to the zoning language before the matter comes to a final vote.

One yet unresolved issue is the matter of how MIT will respond to demands for additional on-campus and near-campus housing for graduate students and post-docs. It’s a legitimate question, and the MIT administration is seriously analyzing this now. The question of whether this housing should be intertwined with the zoning petition is somewhat unclear, especially since MIT has numerous other options for where such housing could be constructed if their analysis proves the need. It’s unfortunate that this issue has been latched onto by at least one new Council candidate who has about as much familiarity with MIT as a fish has with a bicycle.

Applications & Petitions #6. A zoning petition has been received from Charles D. Teague, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify existing law so that said law can be enforced by inserting text after Section 7.20 Illumination, with the existing text to be retained and labeled as Section 7.23 Lighting Restrictions for Residential Districts.

Yup, another zoning petition, and a pretty anticlimactic one after the Forest City petition and the MIT/Kendall petitions that some have used to define their political campaigns.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council and the Cambridge community on the current status, to the extent that it is possible, of the investigation into the June 3, 2012 murder of Charlene Holmes.   Vice Mayor Simmons

I am grateful to Vice Mayor Simmons for bringing this issue back into public view. It is incredibly disturbing to think that this cold-blooded murder in front of witnesses is still unresolved almost a year later.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works as to the feasibility of installing fiber-optic conduits when doing sewer reconstruction and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

The fact is that these fiber-optic conduits are sometimes run inside the sewers. Don’t worry, you won’t see that stuff and it won’t get all over your data.

Order #9. That the conversion of further soccer fields at Danehy Park to artificial turf be delayed until further study of the impact of artificial turf on player’s health be completed along with a report which quantifies the decreased use of the more fragile grass playing fields throughout the city as a result of the installation of artificial turf playing fields be prepared by the Recreation Department.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 5, 2013 to discuss the long-term impact of grass versus artificial turf at Danehy Park.

Though I have not been following this issue, the committee report makes clear that this is a Big Issue for a lot of people – especially the soccer crowd. It does seem a bit weird that Councillor vanBeuzekom is bringing up the concern that "this infill material may contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, benzene, benzothiazole and other toxic derivatives that may present a health risk to residents" as justification for delaying the installation. Is this out of concern for health risks or just opposition to replacing natural grass with artificial turf? I’ll go with the majority of soccer players. If they’re OK with it, then go for it.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to offer City of Cambridge engineering expertise to the City of Belmont so that both cities may work together to ensure that the residents of Cambridge, Belmont and Arlington be protected from the impacts of flooding in Alewife SubWatershed and report back to the City Council.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

On the surface, this certainly seems like a good idea. I always wonder whether the real intention of Orders like this is to delay development proposals or whether there are serious environmental concerns. In matters such as this we also get a clear view of how lacking the regional planning can sometimes be in these parts. Instead, we talk about loaning our expertise to neighboring towns.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 6, 2013 to receive a briefing on the recommendations of the C2 Report.

There’s also a Roundtable City Council meeting coming up on Wed, Mar 27 at 5:30pm on the report of the Central Square Advisory Committee 2011/2012. This is pretty important stuff. Some choose to see only danger and fear of change; while others see opportunity. I count myself in the latter group. The actual zoning recommendations yet to come out of CDD are eagerly awaited. – Robert Winters

Quick Notes on what went down at the Mar 18 City Council meeting:

1) Many people showed up to protest the impending termination of the Longy School’s Preparatory and Continuing Studies program. The City Council’s University Relations Committee will address this at a meeting on Wed, Mar 20 at 2:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber of City Hall.

2) Throngs of soccer players, parents, and coaches came out to question Councillor vanBeuzekom’s Order #9 that recommended delaying the installation of artificial turf on soccer fields at Danehy Park. The Order was subsequently withdrawn. (It would likely have been defeated.)

3) Open Houses on the MIT/Kendall Square Initiative (zoning petition) are scheduled for Sat, Mar 23 from 10:00am to noon and Tues, Mar 26 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm at One Broadway, 1st Floor, next to Firebrand Saints. Look for the blue windows.

MIT/Kendall Open House

4) There was a somewhat disjointed discussion on the appropriateness of a proposed Ordinance Committee roundtable meeting this Fri, Mar 22 at 9:30am to discuss the details of the MIT/Kendall petition. The debate centered on whether it should be televised and whether public comment should be permitted. The procedural compromise was to change this to a City Council roundtable meeting (which are not televised and where public comment is not permitted). Ordinance Committee Chair David Maher promised that there would be another Ordinance Committee meeting on this topic prior to a final vote on ordination. It was also stated that this petition will expire on April 15 rather than April 24 as previously established. Apparently even though state law sets the deadline at 90 days after its first Ordinance Committee hearing, section 1.52 of the City’s zoning ordinance sets the deadline at 90 days after its initial Planning Board hearing (who knew?). The Law Dept. recommended the Apr 15 deadline. After the discussion the City Council passed the petition to a 2nd Reading. This puts it in the queue to be voted for ordination after Mar 28 and before the Apr 15 expiration date.

5) Councillor Decker announced that the state has designated Homeowners Rehab, Inc. (HRI) as the agency to negotiate the sale of the 2 Mt. Auburn St. housing currently owned and managed by Harvard University. She indicated some hope that good news may follow regarding the long-term affordability for tenants of this building. – RW (additions and corrections welcome)

February 10, 2013

Housing and the Kendall Square/MIT Petition

Filed under: Cambridge,Kendall Square,MIT,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 6:19 pm

Housing and the Kendall Square/MIT Petition

There was a forum at MIT on Wed, Feb 6 hosted by the MIT Graduate Student Council that addressed some of the issues associated with the current MIT/Kendall Sq. zoning petition now before the Cambridge Planning Board and the Cambridge City Council. This forum was intended for an MIT audience, and only MIT affiliates were invited. It was an honor to have been asked to be a panelist at this forum. The forum was very well attended and required an overflow room to accommodate all the graduate students, undergraduates, post-docs, faculty, staff and administration who came to hear the plans and ask questions.

The good folks of the MIT GSC know how to run a very good meeting that showcases multiple viewpoints while refraining from advocacy. Special acknowledgement goes to GSC President Brian Spatocco who deserves to one day be the mayor or governor of somewhere, somehow, based on his ability to be so informative, fair, and objective.

After the introductions, the forum opened with Israel Ruiz (MIT Executive Vice-President & Treasurer) and Steve Marsh (Managing Director of Real Estate, MIT Investment Management Corporation – MITIMCo) explaining the elements of the zoning petition and its purpose. The panelists were Martin Schmidt (Associate Provost & Prof. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science), Linda Patton (Asst. Director of Off-Campus Housing), Bob Simha (Director of Campus Planning, 1960-2001 and DUSP Lecturer), Jonathan King (Prof. of Biology), Robert Winters (mathematics lecturer, editor of Cambridge Civic Journal), Ruth Perry (Prof. of Literature), and Thomas Kochan (2030 Faculty Task Force & Professor of Management).

Though the organizers were aware of which panelists might speak favorably or unfavorably about the zoning petition (so that they could provide balance), there were no conditions on what specific topics each panelist could address. I chose to focus on the context of housing for graduate students and on the affordability of housing in general. I tried to look at things from my point of view as someone who was an MIT graduate student starting in 1978 and who bought a three-family house in 1985 where I continue to live today. Though I may have skipped a point or two, here are the points I tried to make during my presentation:

The situation as it used to be (circa 1978):

1) There was a significant supply of multi-family housing stock in Cambridge.

2) Rent control was the law for much of the housing stock.

3) The great majority of graduate students preferred to live off-campus rather than in MIT dormitories.

4) Most graduate students were content to live in housemate situations, often with 3 or 4 or more to an apartment. Luxury accommodations were not in demand.

5) There were relatively few post-docs.

6) Kendall Square as a job generator did not really exist.

What happened? (the perfect storm)

1) Rent control ended as a result of a 1994 statewide initiative petition.

2) Much of the multi-family housing stock was converted to (high-end) condominiums.

3) Kendall Square and elsewhere was developed without concurrent housing – greatly increasing the pressure on existing local housing stock for both rental and ownership opportunities.

4) There was a significant increase in post-doc opportunities (in lieu of tenure-track faculty opportunities) – significantly increasing the grad/post-doc pool of people competing for housing.

5) Changing expectations – grad students/post-docs are demanding much higher quality housing, often shunning housemate situations.

6) Among some grads/post-docs, there is a greater need to be close to their labs.

7) There has been a national shift toward people preferring to live in urban environments, reversing the earlier pro-suburban movement among faculty, professional people, and seniors.

8) Any new housing built in and around Kendall Square will also be occupied by people who work in Boston and elsewhere.

The Net Effect:

All of these factors (and more) affect the availability and affordability of housing in and around Cambridge – not just for graduate students but for everyone. The problem is pervasive and is compounded by the resistance by many existing residents toward the construction of new housing in Cambridge and elsewhere. The isolated construction of a limited amount of housing anywhere in Cambridge will have a negligible effect on the overall housing problem. Indeed, it can even paradoxically have the opposite effect by attracting people toward this limited supply of new units who will then bid up the price to create a local "bubble" in the price of housing.

Indeed, the only way to reverse this "perfect storm" is to advocate for significant amounts of new housing in Cambridge, in Somerville, in Allston, in Charlestown, and elsewhere in the greater Boston area. Only when there is a range of housing choices at various rents and locations will any kind of rental housing market be restored in which people can make rational economic choices such as living a little further away or in less luxury in exchange for paying less rent. Trying to create a smattering of "affordable housing" units via inclusionary zoning or government subsidy will never have more than a limited effect on the essential problem. There are just too many factors conspiring to make housing unaffordable. If graduate students really want affordable housing, they should be clamoring for many thousands of housing units to be built everywhere in the area – and not just in Kendall Square and Cambridge.

Locally, it may well be that condominium conversion has had the greatest impact on this loss of affordability. Where once there were streets lined with two-family houses and triple-deckers that provided affordable housing for a resident owner AND for the other tenants in a building (including many graduate students), there are now luxury condominiums where the prices have been bid up to the point of unaffordability except for those in the upper income echelons. The only "working class" residents remaining are those who bought their housing long ago, inherited it, married well, or those with some expertise in benefiting from government-subsidized housing and related programs.

There are also people like me who bought their homes and continued to rent apartments to graduate students, post-docs, and others and who managed to pay off their mortgages without ever excessively raising rents. My affordable housing continues to provide the affordable housing for two other families who were graduate students when they first arrived. Cambridge would be a better place today if more of its two- and three-family homes had never been turned into luxury condominiums. Failure to put some limits on that condominium conversion may be the single greatest reason why MIT graduate students can no longer find affordable housing opportunities in Cambridge. This is also one of the greatest public policy failures by Cambridge elected officials who put all their faith in rent control. Building "affordable housing" today really is like closing the stable doors long after the horses have run away.

The MIT/Kendall Petition

This petition basically redefines the upper limits (heights, density) of what might be constructed in the area east of Ames Street, south of Main Street (plus the area around One Broadway to Broad Canal), and down to Memorial Drive. This petition is both timely and appropriate. This area has always had a mix of uses, including industrial uses. It’s also located at a major Red Line T station, and virtually all planning professionals agree that it’s best to concentrate density close to public transportation. The petition would only define the envelope of what could be built and not precisely what will be built.

Any debate regarding the appropriateness of commercial buildings vs. academic buildings vs. residential buildings in the petition area should really not be taking place before the Cambridge Planning Board or the Cambridge City Council (though this may affect how the petition is received by these respective bodies). This debate is properly one that must occur within the MIT community – administration, real estate investment people, faculty, staff, and students – and preferably also among those who live and work in the surrounding area.

MIT/Kendall plan - courtesy of Israel Ruiz
photo from MIT’s The Tech

Text of MIT/Kendall Petition

Jan 11, 2013 Memo from Community Development Dept. (CDD)

Regarding the graduate student housing issue

MIT can provide a good "Plan B" option for graduate students and post-docs by having ample on-campus and near-campus MIT-owned residential properties (especially for those who need to be close to labs, etc.), but this will barely make a dent in the larger problem. Many, perhaps most, graduate students and post-docs will continue to seek housing options off-campus – preferably within walking or bicycling distance. The focus has to be on increasing housing options within a reasonable distance of the MIT campus and not just on building housing within the MIT campus. Unfortunately, this is not something that MIT can unilaterally accomplish. It also requires action by local and state government AND by the developers who will ultimately build sufficient housing to restore some kind of viable housing market. Building "affordable housing" is fundamentally just politically expedient window-dressing.

A note on transportation

People really are choosing to be less reliant on automobiles, so public transportation infrastructure has to grow and to provide more frequent service and more reliable connections, and the entire system has to evolve from a hub-and-spokes model to more of a regional network. Otherwise we will be forever limited by the capacity of the hub in Boston. In the coming decades it will be very advantageous if a variety of new transit lines can be developed that do not require passing through the hub of Boston.

Etcetera

Whatever comes of the MIT/Kendall petition and of future plans for the petition area, it is essential that the results should not be boring. There really is a place for food trucks, diners, bumper cars, miniature golf, and other things that will have great appeal to many people – especially to MIT affiliates who have always had a love for things eclectic, entertaining, and affordable. There’s a reason why those food trucks are so popular. Those whose memories go back several decades understand that those food trucks are modern versions of the old F&T Diner. There has to be a place in the future East Campus where modern-day memories will be created – the 21st Century incarnations of the F&T, Pritchett Lounge, and the Muddy Charles Pub. People can reasonably debate the relative merits of housing vs. academic buildings vs. commercial buildings that will help finance long-overdue renovations of existing MIT buildings. However, if the future is boring and pathetically predictable, that will be unforgivable. – Robert Winters

Comments?

F&T 1

F&T 2

F&T 3

January 7, 2013

A Sampler from the Jan 7, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,Kendall Square,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:40 am

A Sampler from the Jan 7, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

The 2013 City Council season opens this Monday with little at bat and a lot on deck. Here is a sampler of some interesting agenda items:

Communications #4. A communication was received from Tom Stohlman transmitting a copy of a letter to Ms. Amy Nable of the MA Attorney General’s Office in response to his Open Meeting Law Complaint.

This is an interesting interpretation of the Open Meeting Law. It seems to suggest that the only legitimate legislative actions the City Council or any public body can propose is the kind that’s dreamt up in a vacuum by an individual or that emerges spontaneously on the floor of the City Council. I don’t think ANY legislative body works this way nor do I think any effective organization or group of individuals works this way. People talk to each other. Elected officials talk to each other (or at least we hope this is the case). Sometimes a consensus around a good idea develops before the whole group gets together. The public gets a chance to chime in, discussion ensues, and a vote is taken. What is to be gained by turning elected officials into robots in straitjackets? What is so offensive about the practice of allowing councillors to individually sign on as sponsors of a City Council Order prior to voting on the record in favor of the Order? If you are unhappy about the decision to hire Rich Rossi as City Manager for a few years, so be it, but why make such a whine out of sour grapes?

Resolution #15. Resolution on the death of Karen Klinger.   Councillor Cheung

Karen Klinger, photo from CCTVWhen I receive email messages from Cambridge people, I confess to classifying the senders mainly into three categories: Friends, Civics, and Politics. Only my real friends are classified as Friends. I lump much of the mail I receive into the Politics category and, quite frankly, I don’t put a lot of weight in that stuff. The special category is Civics – for people who are really trying to do all the best things a citizen should do. These are the constructive people, the thoughtful people, and many of them I eventually call Friends. Karen Klinger was a Civic person, well on her way to being a Friend – a constructive and thoughtful citizen who did not participate in civic life merely to inflate her ego or to obstruct whatever comes along. Karen and I would often ride together on the bike rides sponsored twice per year by the Cambridge Bicycle Committee and we would catch up on things as we rode through the streets of Cambridge.

When I heard that Karen had died after an extended illness, I looked back at some of the messages we had exchanged over the last few years. Just two years ago when fellow cyclist Henry Lewis died suddenly, Karen wrote these haunting words: "That’s so sad about Henry Lewis. What happened? He looked to be the picture of health on the Bow Tie Ride. A very enthusiastic, charismatic guy. I always find it especially shocking when seemingly healthy people who are surely younger than I am suddenly die. I can’t get the image of him, enthusing about the ride and the one coming up next spring–with a music theme–out of my head." Karen was also a very enthusiastic, charismatic gal and I will especially miss her when riding in the next Cambridge Bike Tour on May 13.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate city staff to provide a report to the City Council explaining the SOV target rate that has been established for the City of Cambridge; data that explains how the City of Cambridge is doing in relation to meeting its SOV target rate; and future plans to reduce the actual SOV rate including barriers to achieving as low a rate as is possible.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Nothing unusual in this Order. It’s highlighted primarily to note how certain issues and language seem to rise and fall in importance over the years. It wasn’t so long ago that the City Council often referred to the problem of "single occupancy vehicles." Much of those concerns were incorporated into the City’s Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordiance that effectively replaced the old Interim Parking Freeze. That ordinance drives much of City policy today. We don’t really hear the phrase "single occupancy vehicle" any more. The language today tends to focus on larger themes like energy efficiency, climate change, LEED standards, smart growth, and transit-oriented development. I remember a day 24 years ago when recycling was the new wave. We really have come a long way since then.

Order #4. That the City Council go on record strongly urging the City Manager to fill the two vacancies on the Planning Board with people who have a background in, or association with, the skilled labor and building trades.   Vice Mayor Simmons and Councillor Cheung

I beg to differ. The Planning Board ideally consists of objective, fair-minded people who bring a range of relevant skills to the business of planning the future of the city and its urban design. What exactly is the value added by insisting on having skilled labor and building trades represented on the Planning Board? Will there be another Order forthcoming urging that representatives from the life sciences be appointed to the Planning Board in recognition of their major presence in Kendall Square and elsewhere? Why not have representatives from the universities in recognition of the dominant role they play in Cambridge? Those vacancies should be filled as soon as possible, but the pool should not be restricted to any specific interest group.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, for a public hearing held on Dec 12, 2012 to receive an update on the long-term vision for Kendall Square.

There’s not much to add other than to highlight all the potential activity that is now on deck. New buildings are under construction in Kendall Square and there may be other significant changes there from whatever emerges from the recently re-filed MIT Kendall Square zoning petition and the concurrent planning process now underway. Meanwhile, at the other end of Main Street, the Fennell properties – all 15 of them in the Lafayette Square area – recently sold for $32 million to New Jersey’s Normandy Real Estate Partners which is teaming up with Twining Properties, the New York firm that brought the Watermark apartment towers along with new retail and restaurant offerings to Kendall Square. Great things (or horrible things) could come of all this, but it’s guaranteed to not set well with many activists. It should keep things peppered up around here for the next few years.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on Dec 19, 2012 to introduce Attorney Elizabeth Valerio, who will represent the City Council, in negotiations with the next City Manager, Richard Rossi.

The specifics of the proposed contract with our next City Manager Richard Rossi are due to appear sometime this month.

Miscellaneous #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012.

There are a few City publications that are worth perusing, and this is one of them. If you really have time to waste, you can also check out the City’s annual line item budget at the Cambridge Public Library. That’s the one that gives the names and salaries and benefits of all the City’s full-time employees. Or you could go hiking. I’ll choose the latter.

December 24, 2012

Central Square Advisory Committee 2011/2012 Recommendations

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning,transportation — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 6:45 pm

Central Square Advisory Committee 2011/2012 Recommendations (Nov 28, 2012)

Introduction: Memorandum from the Central Square Advisory Committee 2011/2012 on its Final Recommendations
Full Report (reformatted in HTML) Goals
Public Places to Build Community Public Places elements
Retail, Cultural and Non-Profit Diversity Housing
Connecting People to the Square Foster a Sustainable Future for Central Square
Leverage Future Private and Public Investments Definition of Central Square Districts
Zoning Recommendations Transfer of Development Rights
Transportation Recommendations Location Specific Issues

December 3, 2012

Enjoying? the Concord Avenue “raised bike lanes”

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,Fresh Pond,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 2:49 pm

The Cambridge City Council meeting on December 3, 2012 is to address issues of debris on the Concord Avenue “raised bike lanes”. These replaced conventional bike lanes at street level. I put the term “raised bike lanes” in quotes because a bikeway behind a curb is not a bike lane. By definition, a lane is at street level, so it is possible to merge to and from other lanes. Rather, this is a nonstandard bicycle path.

This post supplements comments which I posted on my own blog before Concord Avenue was reconstructed. The photos here are stills from video shot during a ride westbound at mid-day on November 20, 2012, with moderate motor traffic and very light bicycle traffic.

First photo: Crosswalk just west of the Alewife Brook Parkway rotary is backing up motor traffic. This already generates traffic jams with light bicycle traffic. The City expects the bikeways to attract more cyclists and to lead to a major increase in bicycle traffic.

Crosswalk backs up traffic on Concord Avenue

Crosswalk backs up traffic on Concord Avenue

Next photo: The westbound bikeway crosses 8 streets and 24 driveways in 3000 feet. The most persistent hazard on the westbound bikeway is of “right hook” and “left cross” collisions. The van in the photo not only is turning across the bikeway; it also might be hiding another vehicle preparing a left turn from ahead. The bikeway places bicyclists where they are defenseless against these threats. I say more about them, and how to avoid them, in my earlier blog post.

Right hook and left cross threat on Concord Avenue bikeway

Right hook and left cross threat on Concord Avenue bikeway

Next — bus stop. When the bike lanes were at street level, bicyclists could pass a stopped bus on the left, or wait behind it. Motorists also usually could pass a stopped bus. Passing would have been even easier with bus turnouts on the westbound side, where there is only one travel lane. Now that the roadway has instead been narrowed, converting the conventional bike lanes into “raised bike lanes”, buses must completely block the travel lane, and passengers getting off a bus step down directly into the path of bicyclists. A 2007 research study in Copenhagen showed an increase in bicyclist-pedestrian collisions of 17 times, and of injuries of 19 times, when bus stops were placed outside bikeways like this. More about that study.

Bus stop on Concord Avenue, with green paint

Bus stop on Concord Avenue, with green paint

That study was published well before construction on the Concord Avenue bikeway began. Not only that, the City’s bicycle coordinator repeatedly points to Copenhagen as a model of what Cambridge should do.

To resolve conflicts between bicyclists and passengers descending from buses, the City first painted bicycle markings. Those markings, however, suggest that bicyclists have priority, and these markings also may not be directly in front of a bus’s door when it opens, to warn the passengers. At some later time, green carpet painting was added. This is normally used to indicate where motorists yield to bicyclists (see Federal Highway Administration interim approval), but here it is intended to indicate where bicyclists must yield to pedestrians, a confused and contradictory message. This bus stop is at a driveway. Traffic has worn away some of the green paint and you can see the bicycle marking which was painted over.

Bicycle marking under green paint at bus stop on Concord Avenue

Bicycle marking under green paint at bus stop on Concord Avenue

One problem to be discussed at the City Council meeting is that snow clearance is not practical on the westbound bikeway, because of its repeated ups and downs. Ice also puddles there. Here’s a photo from another blogger, dr2chase, showing winter conditions on the westbound bikeway. dr2chase’s blog has many more photos.

dr2chase's photo of winter conditions on the Concord Avenue bikeway westbound

dr2chase’s photo of winter conditions on the Concord Avenue bikeway westbound

dr2chase also has made the point that snow clearance is much more practical on the eastbound bikeway, which has only one driveway entrance in its entire length. Here is his photo illustrating that:

drchase's photo of the eastbound bikeway in winter

drchase’s photo of the eastbound bikeway in winter

The bikeway on each side is designated as one-way. People are likely to use both of them for two-way travel, and not only in snow season, because a cyclist must stand in the street to lift the bicycle over the curb of the eastbound bikeway at most locations. Also note the seam between asphalt and concrete running down the middle of the photo above. It is intended to separate bicyclists from pedestrians. It won’t, especially with two-way bicycling, and over the years, it will deteriorate so it traps bicycle wheels. dr2chase and I have both made the point that a properly-designed, designated two-way bikeway on the south side of Concord Avenue, adjacent to Fresh Pond Park, would have made good sense, connecting with the existing bikeways in the park and crossing only one driveway in its entire length — at a signalized intersection. I also would have liked to keep the street at its previous width, with street-level bike lanes, to allow efficient through travel and make it possible to reach the eastbound bikeway without lifting a bicycle over a curb.

The next photo illustrates the crossing-the-street issue. Note the driveway at the right rear, and that there is no break in the curb on the far side of Concord Avenue. To cross without stopping in the street, and to avoid having to double back, cyclists will most likely ride eastbound in the westbound bikeway. That is illegal and hazardous: motorists pulling out of side streets and driveways look in the opposite direction for traffic.

The mailbox adjacent to the 5-foot-wide bikeway adds a nice touch as well. Nick it with your handlebar, and you go down hard. Even without such obstructions, 5 feet is minimal for one-way travel. This mailbox is one of a large number of fixed-object hazards adjacent to the bikeway.

Mailbox, and curb on far side of Concord Avenue

Mailbox, and curb on far side of Concord Avenue

Not all hazards are fixed-object hazards. There are these trash barrels.

Trash barrels on westbound bikeway on Concord Avenue

Trash barrels on westbound bikeway on Concord Avenue

Behind the trash barrels, you may have noticed a car discharging passengers. A cyclist who regularly rides Concord Avenue reports that delivery vehicles also now stop in the bikeway.

Car stops in bikeway to discharge passengers, on Concord Avenue

Car stops in bikeway to discharge passengers, on Concord Avenue

My next photos show what I call the X-merge, or double-cross merge.

Normal traffic law requires a driver to maintain a constant lane position when another driver is overtaking. Here’s an excerpt from the Massachusetts law [Link updated March 1, 2025. The section has been amended but there has been no change to this wording.]:

Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other.

Bicyclists may overtake on the right, according to another section of the law [link updated March 1, 2025; no change in this wording.]:

…the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way…

When a bicyclist is directed to merge from right to left at an arbitrary location, and a motorist to merge from left to right at the same location, they are both violating the law. Green paint here is used to direct cyclists and motorists to operate illegally.

X-merge on Concord Avenue

X-merge on Concord Avenue

I avoided right-hook threats by merging in behind the stopped car so the next vehicle turning right could safely pass me on the right.

Avoiding the X-merge on Concord Avenue

Avoiding the X-merge on Concord Avenue

Before Blanchard Road, a traffic island narrows the roadway. The bike lane, between the through travel lane and right turn lane, is too narrow to allow safe clearance on both sides. Note in the photo below that the narrow median on the far side of Blanchard Road allows much more room to the left of the bike lane. The traffic island predates the reconstruction: the bike lane has been shoehorned in by narrowing the other lanes. Concord Avenue is wide enough to accommodate turning traffic without the island’s being so wide.

Wide traffic island at Blanchard Road narrows bike lane on Concord Avenue

Wide traffic island at Blanchard Road narrows bike lane on Concord Avenue

Well, enough. You get the idea. I’ll finish with a couple of quotes. Here’s one from MarkS, commenting on dr2chase’s blog post:

I don’t know why they wasted the time and money to put these tracks in in the first place. I find a bike lane much more convenient, and in some ways safer — clearly safer than that abomination on the north side of Concord Ave — the “outgoing” side. And, if ever we decide to re-design the situation, the expense of doing so will be significantly — and that’s an understatement — more than it would be to just re-paint the lines where the bike lane would have been.

Here’s another quote, from dr2chase:

…the west-bound side is about the most ineffective botch I have ever seen. But the eastbound side is quite nice (with the exception of the scary-high curbs). One extremely-low-traffic intersection, no driveways, hence none of those risks, and so wide that (with current bike/ped traffic levels) there is little harm in riding the wrong way on the good side. Technically illegal, but vastly safer, and I cannot fault someone for making the safer choice.

I agree! And have a look at the video online!

Save

Save

Save

November 19, 2012

Nov 19, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,elections,planning — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:42 am

Nov 19, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

Here are some items that jump out as worthy of comment:

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Council Order Number 10, dated 5/23/2011, regarding Biogen return to Cambridge.

Biogen Idec Inc. intends to soon relocate its headquarters to Cambridge where it now has a substantial presence. As the Manager’s letter states, "The remaining outstanding barrier is the zoning requirement that a cafeteria be located on the ground floor of the building and open to the public at least 20 hours per week." This seems like a completely reasonable accommodation, especially if the local business association makes a parallel effort to create affordable food options in the immediate area. Most people would likely choose to eat in a restaurant than in the cafeteria of a life sciences building anyway. Perhaps that existing provision in the zoning code is a vestige of the days when Kendall Square had vanishing dining options. That’s no longer the case, though the provision of affordable dining options could still use some attention.

Resolution #15. Resolution on the death of William M. Hogan, Jr.   Councillor Maher

William Hogan was a former Cambridge City Councillor and first Vice Mayor under the Plan E Charter. He was the last surviving councillor elected in 1941 in Cambridge’s first PR election under the Plan E Charter adopted the previous year. He died at the age of 100. He would have been about 27 when he was elected (in 1939) and 31 when he left office. He ran unsuccessfully for reelection in 1943. He was among the last elected councillors-at-large in 1939 under the previous charter and the first under the new Plan E charter.

Resolution #25. Thanks to City staff for their work on Election Day.   Mayor Davis

Order #16. That the City Manager confer with the Election Commission to make information publicly available on wait times throughout Election Day and the number of booths at each precinct.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

Though I had to wait over 40 minutes in line to vote this year, when I got to the front of the line I saw only efficiency and courtesy from the the poll workers at the City Hall Annex. Though things may have run faster with more booths, the real slowdown was caused by the presence of several additional nonbinding ballot questions that most people did not have an opportunity to read prior to voting. If it were my call, I would allow voters the option to vote outside of the booths if they don’t mind doing so. The checking in, checking out, and inserting of ballots into the scanner go very quickly. The limiting factor is the number of booths. One of the great advantages of scannable paper ballots is that there is no strict limit on how many voters can simultaneously if there is some flexibility in where you can fill out your ballot. Mayor Davis’ appreciation of election workers stands in marked contrast to the recent bellyaching of one of her colleagues.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to investigate creating a pilot program for installing mini exercise stations on major walking routes throughout the city, perhaps at bus stops, subway stations and public parks.   Mayor Davis

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to look into the installation of public drinking fountains at additional locations in the city – possibly working with the Cambridge Arts Council on interesting designs.   Mayor Davis

These are interesting and creative suggestions. Every such installation, however, will have to be maintained and that could be problematic. I’m inclined to believe that public parks and plazas would be a lot more appropriate than bus stops and subway stations.

Order #4. That the Cambridge City Council go on record urging the members of the Senate Ways and Means Committee to pass MA Senate Bill 2314, "An Act Relative to Plastic Bag Reduction."   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Law Department to prepare language for an amendment to the Municipal Code to ban the use of polystyrene-based disposable food containers and to provide a waiver provision similar to the by-law of the Town of Brookline.   Councillor Cheung and Mayor Davis

I’m glad that there is attention being given to some of these more annoying aspects of waste management, especially the reduction of materials for which there are limited recycling options. It should be noted that consumers have always been able to avoid plastic bags simply by providing their own reusable bags when shopping. Regarding the banning of polystyrene food containers, don’t be surprised if some food vendors replace them by even more wasteful containers made of other plastics that rarely make it into the recycling stream.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate city officials to explore the possibility of completing and submitting the Bicycle Friendly Community application by Feb 26, 2013 so that the City of Cambridge may be included in the next review cycle and join together with other communities in participating in the Bicycle Friendly Community program.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

As a daily cyclist, I continue to scrutinize the City’s decisions regarding safe accommodation for cyclists and transportation policies that often seem more rooted in hostility toward motor vehicle operators than in the promotion of good alternatives. The City does seem to be doing a better job in their design of on-street bike lanes, though they routinely err in their treatment of these lanes at intersections. State law requires that right-turning vehicles move as far right as possible before making their turn, yet the City often stripes bike lanes with a solid line right up to intersections. Unless a motor vehicle operator drives in the bike lane immediately before turning, there will be a greater risk of turning into a cyclist passing on the right – and many cyclists are oblivious to this danger. The City is also installing "cycle tracks" on some streets that will create significant conflicts at driveways and intersections and will most likely narrow travel lanes to the point where on-street cyclists wishing to maintain more than casual recreational speeds are endangered. I don’t expect these realities to be reflected in the City’s application, and City planners have been unresponsive in their cycle track juggernaut.

Order #9. Special Permit process pursuant to MGL 40A as it relates to the impact of re-filing a zoning petition on pending special permits or special permits that have been granted.   Councillor Kelley

Though I won’t speak to the merits of this Order, the confusion by city councillors over the recent "move to withdraw" the Yanow Petition indicated that a little more schooling on zoning regulations and procedures may be in order.

Order #11. That the Cambridge City Council go on record urging the members of the Massachusetts Committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling to pass MA House Bill 4165, "An Act Relative to Speed Limits."   Councillor vanBeuzekom

This legislation would reduce the speed limit within "thickly settled areas" and business districts from the current level of 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. As a "thickly settled area", all of Cambridge would likely be covered by this reduced speed limit. While this would make sense in many Cambridge locations, especially on narrow streets with many parked cars, there are plenty of other streets where the existing 30mph speed limit makes more sense. This proposal is introduced every few years and is usually not supported by transportation engineers who argue that, in the absence of other factors, speed limits should be set according to prevailing speeds in order to minimize conflicts.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate city officials to explore the possibility of communicating appropriate storm preparedness through the website and text messages sent by the city.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

This is a good suggestion and consistent with the City’s long-standing practice of encouraging residents to help keep storm drains clear during and after winter storms. Having braved Sandy’s wrath on several occasions to clear the storm drains in my neighborhood, I think it would be very helpful if people were more aware of keeping these drains unobstructed. That means not only parking clear of the drains, but also picking up a rake and getting out there to help keep the drains clear.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on Oct 19, 2012 to discuss Community Benefits.

The report suggests that the City Council has a long way to go before really coming to terms with this issue. In simple terms, a community benefit is the money paid or benefit provided by a developer for up-zoning property. However, when city councillors are closely involved in deciding how these funds should be spent, the funds often go toward pet projects or priorities of individual councillors. The default option is often affordable housing. One of the more refreshing aspects of the Goody Clancy process for Kendall Square and Central Square has been the expanded definition of community benefits to include things like the exclusion of ground floor retail in the calculation of building densities, financial support for retail in the form of either reduced rent or outfitting the space, and the creation of public spaces for markets and other purposes. These and other ideas are welcome additions to the discussion of what community benefits might flow from permitting additional density in appropriate locations. This committee report only refers to housing and human services, and that’s far too limiting. The Government Operations Committee and Ordinance Committee would be well-advised to absorb the forthcoming recommendations regarding Kendall Square and Central Square before redefining what constitute community benefits and how any related funds should be disbursed. It should also be stated that when community benefits are tied to up-zoning proposals, there is the very real possibility that every such proposal will be granted as long as enough cash is put on the table – regardless if the proposal makes good planning sense. – Robert Winters

November 14, 2012

Cycle track disease is contagious!

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

It crosses over from Cambridge to hit the slippery slope (literally) in Somerville.

Please see my extended comments here: http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=4862

September 27, 2012

But seriously, folks

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:38 am

But seriously, folks.

Sept 27 – The activism of the group calling itself the "Cambridge Residents Alliance" has reached a new low (if that’s possible) in their campaign of distortion and fear-mongering. This is the group that has a zoning proposal now before the City Council and the Planning Board that would reduce allowed building heights in Central Square and enshrine surface parking lots as the pinnacle of urban design. Not surprising, some people objected to the absurdity of this proposal. Thus was born a new group called "A Better Cambridge" that embraces the radical notions that acres of surburban-style parking lots might not be the be-all-end-all of urban design and that maybe the current height limits in Central Square are acceptable and that a little new construction might be a good thing for Central Square – especially if this can leverage some middle-income housing. A modest petition campaign was begun suggesting that downzoning Central Square is neither necessary nor good policy on many levels.

Apparently, all this common sense was too much for the "Alliance" activists. So the petition received this morning the following two forged signatures of rather obvious "Alliance" origin:

Bob Healy, Cambridge, MA
Speaking on behalf of the developers, this petition will THREATEN our potential profits. Let’s be clear – it we want to make some real money, we have to tear down those cheap houses and get rid of the small businesses in Area 4, and put in high-rise, full market apartment buildings, big biotech tabs, and stores that can pay high rents, like banks. This way, we can charge $3000-$4500/month for a 1BR, like we already do in University Park. Our plan is to tear down everything along Main Street and Bishop Allen Drive, force the people out of Washington Elms, and turn all of lower Area-4 into another "Kendall Square." We’ll make BILLION$. And if the residents don’t like it, they can move. This is progress, and we can’t let a few troublemakers stop progress!

K Reeves, Cambridge, MA
The best part is how we’ve actually convinced most of the City Council that 1960s-style urban renewal is good! (Maybe they’re too young to remember what happened back then?) I guess they’re just looking for the big payoff; these new buildings will make BILLIONS$ for the developers and bring in some hefty tax revenue. Ok… I admit that NOT passing a downzoning petition will allow us to "mahattanize" a large portion of the city that’s currently residential, permanently displace thousands of low- and moderate-income families, and add tens of thousands of cars to the streets. They can take the T (even though it’s over capacity). The proposed petition is BAD for profits!

Is this what civic activism has descended to? – RW

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress