Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 19, 2026

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 667-668: May 19, 2026

Episode 667 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 19, 2026 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on May 19, 2026 at 6:00pm. Topics: CCA – Ruth Romer remarks (Oct 1980) and citizenship; Memorial Drive Incident; May 18 Council meeting – watershed protection, social housing and public/subsidized housing, reappointment of Interim City Clerk Paula Crane; discontinuation of ShotSpotter and rampant misinformation, “performative allyism” and “saviorism of marginalized people”. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 668 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 19, 2026 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on May 19, 2026 at 6:30pm. Topics: Flawed Charter Review, studying mayoral election method, privileged councillors, history of CCA defending PR and the city manager form of government; senior exemption for parking permit, check box to get a free sticker; wrangling over Council Rules and councillor entitlement, some relevant history; closing of the S&S Restaurant; Cuba and foreign policy issues in the City Council, Azeem flip-flop; food vendors in City parks; commissioning a housing needs study vs. invoking a crisis; FY27 Operating Budget exceeds One Billion Dollars; abandoning plan to reconfigure Garden Street to two-way traffic. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 22, 2026

Coming Up at the March 23, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting

Coming Up at the March 23, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here you go:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning April 1, 2026 and ending March 31, 2027. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Deputy City Manager Kathy Watkins, Nolan, Mark Gallagher (Water Dept.), Flaherty; Orders Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Water & Sewer Block Rates: FY17 – FY27
Water and Sewer Rates - FY26

Water & Sewer Rate Increases: FY17-FY27
Water & Sewer increases: FY16-FY26

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $900,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund and the rescission of funds from two grants in the amount of $2,000,000 and $400,000 respectively to support a new off-road bridge over the Fitchburg Rail Line. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Brooke McKenna (Transportation), Nolan; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

“Funds will be used to support the design costs toward a new off-road bridge over the Fitchburg Rail Line that will connect Danehy Park to the Rindge Avenue neighborhood…”

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a BUEDO Review Board Appointment. [text of report]
Appointment Confirmed 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to classification of the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (BEUDO) Review Board as special municipal employees. [text of report]
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5,234,379 from Free Cash to support snow operations. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, John Nardone (DPW), Sobrinho-Wheeler, TJ Shea (DPW), Flaherty, McGovern, Kathy Watkins, George Heinz (DHSP), Zusy, Siddiqui; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $700,000 from Free Cash to support road repairs related to snow operations. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan (taken up with Mgr #5); Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to AR26-21 regarding exploration of a potential Snow Corps program. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler (taken up with Mgr #5); Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the 2025 Town Gown Reports and Presentations discussed by the Planning Board in February. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Nolan, Melissa Peters (CDD), Al-Zubi, City Manager Yi-An Huang; Placed on File 9-0

Order #2. City Council support of H.91 and S.2556, An Act to modernize funding for community media programming.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Flaherty
pulled by McGovern for comments; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department and the Transportation Department to meet with Harvard’s Office of Community Relations and the Longwood Collective (MASCO) to harmonize institutional bus protocols with public-facing commitments.   Councillor Al-Zubi, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct relevant City departments and staff to examine and report back on whether the city can require single-stall public bathrooms to be gender-neutral.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Al-Zubi, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem [attachment]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern (w/amendments), Flaherty, Zusy, Nolan, Siddiqui; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

On The Table #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to raise the fee of the parking permit program for all residents to $75, consider how to include a self-identified check off option so as not to increase administrative costs for a subsidized fee of $25 for residents who live in affordable housing, are enrolled in a program such as SNAP or are low income, remove the senior exemption for the residential parking permit program and lower the number of cars that individual residents are allowed to get a residential parking permit for from four to two. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 9, 2026; Tabled Mar 2, 2026] (PO26#32)
No Action Taken

There seemed to be some movement three weeks ago toward not eliminating the senior exemption – before Mayor Siddiqui intervened by tabling the matter so that any possible amendments could instead be discussed out of public view. We could also use a more honest accounting of the actual costs of administering the permit parking program. As someone comment at last week’s meeting, the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) charges a registration fee of $50 every two years. How can the City’s Department of Congestion, Obstruction, and Aggravation (a.k.a. Transportation Department) justify triple that cost? Why can’t the fact that a motor vehicle is registered to a Cambridge address suffice? We do, after all, have access to the RMV database. Why must renewal be done every year rather than every two years?

Unfinished Business #2. Amend section 4.50 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance as follows with the intent of permitting the use of land for the following purposes as-of-right in all zoning districts: religious purposes; educational purposes on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; and for a child care center, school-aged child care program, family child care home, or large family child care home as defined in section 1a of Chapter 15d of Massachusetts General Laws. [Passed to 2nd Reading Mar 2, 2026; may be ordained on or after Mar 23, 2026] (ORD26#1)
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan; Ordained 8-1 (Flaherty – No)

Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Feb 25, 2026 to receive a status update on Federal Grants (including ARPA) and the Federal Grant Stabilization Fund, as well as a discussion on establishing future Budget Priorities. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Late Order #5. Support A Federal Earmark to Take Plans for the Boston-Cambridge Riverwalk Construction at Science Park to 25% Design.   Councillor Zusy, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Nolan (PO26#63)
Comments by Zusy, Flaherty, Nolan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

July 12, 2016

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 155-156: July 12, 2016 – featuring Cambridge Water

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Fresh Pond,water — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:53 pm

Cambridge InsideOut Episode 155 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 5:30pm. The hosts are Judy Nathans and Robert Winters. [On YouTube]


Cambridge InsideOut Episode 156 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:00pm. The hosts are Judy Nathans and Robert Winters. [On YouTube]

Much of the discussion in both episodes focused on the Cambridge Water System.

October 7, 2013

Cambridge Watershed Bike Tour – October 19

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,water — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:13 pm

Cambridge Watershed Bike Tour – October 19

Cambridge, MA — Explore where your water comes from! Join Cambridge Water Department (CWD) staff on a guided bike tour of the watershed Saturday, Oct 19, from 8am-4pm. The 34-mile loop will take cyclists from the Walter J. Sullivan Purification Facility at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway in Cambridge, to the watershed lands and reservoirs in Lincoln, Lexington, Weston and Waltham. Rain date is Sunday, Oct 20.

The tour will include stops at the CWD Field Office, Winter Street Dam and Gatehouse, Stony Brook Dam and Gatehouse, and Paul Revere Capture Site. Advanced registration is required; registration closes on Oct 15. Participants must be comfortable with the 34 mile distance and must provide their own bike (road or hybrid), helmet and lunch. Technical assistance will be provided by Urban AdvenTours.

To register, please contact Katie at kbooras@cambridgema.gov or call 617-349-7712. For more information, visit http://www.cambridgema.gov/Water/Programs/watershedbiketour.aspx.

Cycle to the Source

June 5, 2011

Water Main Break at Broadway and Trowbridge

Filed under: water — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:03 am

June 4, 2011 (evening) – The water pressure has returned for most of Cambridge after the major water main break at the corner of Broadway and Trowbridge Street. It’s not yet clear what exactly failed – the 30 inch main, a coupling, or something else, but it wiped out the water pressure for much of Cambridge for several hours – especially in the eastern half of the city. We’ll have to wait and see what the damage is to the new Main Library where the water flooded into the underground garage and, presumably, into at least some parts of the lower floors. They never lost power and had their pumps running, so hopefully much of the potential damage has been at least somewhat contained.

The great flood
View westward along Broadway toward Trowbridge

The temporary moat in front of the new Main Library
The temporary moat in front of the new Main Library

CPD UPDATE: Residents on the even side of Broadway, from Goodman Street to Quincy Street, may be without water until approximately 7:00am tomorrow (Monday, June 6). Crews are working diligently to restore water to residents as soon as possible. http://bit.ly/iWfx1o

The Day After
The Day After

The Day After
Repairs Underway

The Brass Confer - City Engineer Owen O'Riordan, Deputy City Manager Rich Rossi, DPW Commissioner Lisa Peterson, Water Department Managing Director Sam Corda
The Brass Confer – City Engineer Owen O’Riordan, Deputy City Manager Rich Rossi, DPW Commissioner Lisa Peterson,
Water Department Managing Director Sam Corda (not sure who’s in the red shirt)

November 3, 2010

Specific issues with Western Avenue project

In this post, I’m going to examine some of the drawings of its Western Avenue project which the City of Cambridge has provided.

All of the illustrations below are from the City’s conceptual design booklet.

Western Avenue concept drawing

Western Avenue concept drawing

The cars shown parked at the left are real cars, in the original photograph that was modified to show the conceptual design. Typical sedans are about 5 1/2 feet wide, not counting the side-view mirrors, but common light trucks are as much as 6 1/2 feet wide. Big trucks and buses can be 8 1/2 feet wide.

The cars shown parked at the right are drawings added when the photo was modified. All of them are micro-cars, very much smaller than the cars on the left — only about 4 1/2 feet wide.

Bicyclists complain about “door zone” bike lanes — where opening car doors pose a threat. On the other hand, the door zone serves an important function. A motorist can open the car door without its protruding directly into the path of motor traffic, and can walk around the car.

In the drawing below, I have copied the nearest car in the original drawing into each travel lane. This drawing shows too little clearance between parked vehicles and moving ones to allow motorists safely to walk around to the street side of their vehicles or open the doors. The right lane as shown is especially tight, even with micro-cars parked on the right and ordinary sedans in the travel lanes — though Western Avenue is a designated bus and truck route.

Western Avenue concept drawing, modified

Western Avenue concept drawing, modified

To show how wide the left lane is at present, the white line in the foreground replaces the gray patch that is dimly visible in the original drawing, covering up the location of the present lane line.

The parts of the illustration that are from the original photo are to scale — including the cars I have copied into the travel lanes. The drawn-in elements are conceptual, and some are not to scale.

The drawing below, also from the City, is dimensioned, showing a 36-foot wide roadway. The elements are to scale: 10.5 foot travel lanes, 7-foot parking lanes and mid-sized cars 6 feet wide, not counting the mirrors — like a a Ford Taurus. This drawing shows more room between vehicles than the right lane in the photo, but on the other hand, the parked cars are tight against the curbs, and no trucks or buses are shown.

Cross-section of street with cycle track

Cross-section of street with cycle track

Now let’s look at an overhead drawing, which shows a typical treatment at an intersection.

Western Avenue at Jay Street

Western Avenue at Jay Street

Let’s put more cars and some bicyclists and pedestrians into the picture. I’ve put three bicyclists on the blue strip which represents the cycle track. Two are headed with traffic and one is headed opposite traffic. (Off-street facilities encourage two-direction traffic, and this is particularly so on a one-way street where there is no opposite-direction paired street conveniently nearby.) There also is a group of pedestrians standing on the bulbout before the intersection. Excuse me if the bicyclists and pedestrians look like ants, I’m no Picasso.

Pedestrians and parked cars conceal  right-way bicyclists from drivers of cars A and B, increasing the risk of a “right hook” collision. Also, Car B  is blocking the right-hand travel lane. Such blockages will increase congestion. The more bicyclists, the more often turning motorists will have to wait in the position shown. At present, motorists can keep moving as they prepare to turn right, because they can merge behind a bicyclist before reaching the intersection.

Car C in the drawing must wait far back from the intersection, what with the separate sidewalk and cycle track. Then, on reaching the intersection, as shown in the illustration below, the car must block the cycle track as the driver scans for traffic. If more than one car is in line, both the sidewalk and the cycle track will be blocked at the same time.

Western Avenue at Jay Street, cycle track blocked

Western Avenue at Jay Street, cycle track blocked

Presently, without the cycle track, this kind of blockage happens only for the sidewalk. It is more troublesome and hazardous for bicyclists than pedestrians, because bicyclists are faster, and farther away when the driver must first see them, and can be hidden by buildings or by pedestrians on the sidewalk. The crash rate for wrong-way cyclists on cycle tracks like this one is very high — research in Finland, Sweden and Germany has shown it to be about 10 times as high as for right-way travel on the street. Right-way travel on a cycle track located, like this one, behind parked cars, and with unsignalized intersections and driveways, has been shown only two or three times as hazardous.

There is also a much greater risk of collisons with pedestrians, and with other bicyclists, than when riding in the street. This cycle track has about 6 feet of width where bicyclists are clear of car-door hazards or plantings — very substandard for a two-way facility.

There is a question what the wrong-way bicyclists will do when they reach Franklin Street and the cycle track ends. Most likely, they will go up onto the sidewalk or ride opposite traffic in the bike lane.

Finally, let’s look at the intersection of Western Avenue and Memorial Drive. At present, Western Avenue has four travel lanes approaching the intersection.  The rightmost lane is a right-turn-only lane which the City describes as underutilized. I agree with that description — even in the evening rush hour, I have been able to filter forward to the intersection on my bicycle in that lane.

The City proposes to change that lane into a cycle track, so right turns are made from the next lane to the left. In this connection, I question the City’s conclusion that its plan will not increase congestion. In the evening rush hour, traffic already queues on Putnam Avenue and Memorial Drive, all the way back to River Street. Even one vehicle waiting to turn right, while bicyclists overtake on the right, will block all other vehicles in the lane behind it. This is aside from the issue of institutionalizing the “right hook” — placing all responsibility for bicyclists’ safety on the motorists, and stripping away bicyclists’ defense of merging into the line of right-turning traffic.

Western Avenue at Memorial Drive, conceptual drawing

Western Avenue at Memorial Drive, conceptual drawing

I suggest instead that bicyclists be encouraged to travel along the left side of the right-turn lane, by means of shared-lane markings and signage, or better, if there is room, a through bike lane.

The question remains of how to handle opposite-direction bicycle traffic. It does not admit of an easy answer.  At this point, I’m most inclined to try to address it on River Street.

And, I’ll add: the sacredness of on-street parking is the issue that makes the problem insoluble. If parking could be removed form one side of Western Avenue, a contraflow bike lane would be an option.

There is no such issue on River Street, because there are many parallel streets in Cambridgeport that allow travel in the opposite direction.

Signing off…

Powered by WordPress