Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 13, 2011

Voter Choice Local Option Proposal

Filed under: elections — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 9:37 am

A bill was filed (January 2011) in the Massachusetts State Legislature that would permit cities and towns in Massachusetts to adopt Instant Runoff Voting using ranked choice ballots in their local elections. This local option could be adopted for single winner elections and/or multi-seat (at-large) elections such as a city council or school committee.

How do people feel about this enabling legislation? Bear in mind that this proposal would not impose any changes to any local elections. It would simply grant the right to Massachusetts cities and towns to adopt ranked choice voting without having to file a home rule petition for a Special Act of the legislature. More information is available at http://voterchoicema.org. The text of the bill follows.

Voter Choice Local Option Proposal (January 2011)

HD 02026: An Act Providing a Local Option for Instant Runoff Voting in City or Town Elections

SECTION 1: Section 44A of chapter 43 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 7, the words "section forty-four G" and inserting in place thereof the words "sections 44G and 103R".

SECTION 2: Section 77 of chapter 54 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 5, the words "section thirty-three E" and inserting in place thereof the words "sections 33E and 103R".

SECTION 3: Chapter 54 is hereby further amended by inserting after section 103Q the following section:-

Section 103R. Instant Runoff Voting in city or town elections

(a) Notwithstanding any other general or special law to the contrary, any city or town may conduct a local election using instant runoff voting in which voters rank the candidates for an office in order of preference. Instant runoff voting elections may be used for single-winner elections, such as Mayor, or for elections that elect multiple candidates to office, such as city council. Instant runoff voting elections are tabulated in rounds using the "single transferable vote" method. Winning thresholds shall be calculated based on the number of countable votes and the number of seats to be filled. General provisions for either single-winner elections or multiple-winner elections shall be specified by ordinance, provided that a person’s lower ranked choices shall not harm the likelihood of their higher ranked choices becoming elected. Such ordinances shall be enacted by the municipality’s legislative body, be it a city council, board of alderman, board of selectmen, or town meeting, and the body shall request the input of the community’s registrars of voters and town clerk or city election commissioners. The ordinance shall specify at a minimum the method of calculating winning thresholds, how candidates with the fewest votes shall be eliminated before a subsequent round of the tally, how votes for eliminated candidates shall be transferred to the voter’s next valid choice, how ties shall be dealt with, how ballots that skip a ranking or otherwise are mismarked shall be counted, and in the case of multi-seat contests, how surplus votes above the winning threshold for a candidate shall be transferred to alternate choices. Preliminary elections shall not be held in cities and towns using instant runoff voting for all offices that would otherwise require preliminary elections.

(b) A voting method authorized by this section may be adopted by any of the following:

(1) By approval of a ballot measure submitted to the voters by the governing body of the city or town at a regular or special election.

(2) By initiative ordinance or charter amendment.

(c) Any city or town using a instant runoff voting method shall conduct a voter education and outreach campaign to familiarize voters with ranked voting.

(d) The instant runoff voting ballot shall allow voters to rank as many choices as there are candidates. In the event that the voting equipment cannot feasibly accommodate a number of rankings on the ballot equal to the number of candidates, town registrars of voters or city election commissioners may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to the maximum number allowed by the equipment. If there are three or more candidates, this limit shall never be less than three.

(e) The ballot shall not interfere with a voter’s ability to rank at least one write-in candidate. For the purposes of this section, a mark for an unqualified write-in candidate shall not be considered a mark for a candidate.

(f) After four years, a city or town which has adopted instant runoff voting may choose to return to its prior voting method by any of the following:

(1) By approval of a ballot measure submitted to the voters by the governing body of the city or town at a regular or special election.

(2) By an initiative ordinance or charter amendment.

SECTION 4: This act shall take effect upon its passage.

June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:30 am

June 6, 2011 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Council returns Monday to a relatively light agenda. I suspect there will also be some discussion of the major water main break that occurred Saturday night. While most people tend to focus on the inconvenience and losses due to flooded basements, the most serious aspect to the incident was the period of a few hours during which fire protection was seriously compromised due to the lack of any water pressure at fire hydrants in a large portion of the city. Thankfully, there was little or no damage to the Main Library and the Water Department workers did themselves proud by completing all the essential work within one day. A section of Broadway may remain closed for part of the work week as the Trowbridge/Broadway intersection is restored.

Here are a few items of interest on the Agenda:

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-33, regarding the feasibility of using City-installed and managed cameras in the Clifton Street area.

Though I suppose the ACLU whiners may show up to protest this perceived intrusion, hopefully sense will prevail this time and the City Council will give its blessing. On the heels of the City Council’s pinheaded disapproval a few years ago of cameras provided by the federal government (at no cost), one can understand why the City Manager states that "it is not my intention to purchase these cameras absent a City Council endorsement."

There is one annual item from the City Manager about balancing the books prior to the June 30 end of the fiscal year. More interesting, however, is a string of rescissions for money authorized by various loan orders which are no longer necessary. This is the content of City Manager’s Agenda items #20 through #26.

City Manager’s Agenda #18. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order authorizing the City Manager to transfer appropriations of available balances prior to the close of the books for FY10-11.

City Manager’s Agenda #20-26. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to various loan orders requesting the rescission of the remaining amounts of the loan orders:

#20. $5,000 of $1,355,000 authorized by the City Council on May 12, 1997 for the first phase of the Fiber Optic Infrastructure Project. This project has been successfully completed and the balance of $5,000 on the loan order is no longer required.

#21. $315,000 of $315,000 authorized by the City Council on May 11, 1998 for the second phase of the Fiber Optic Infrastructure Project. This project has been successfully completed and the balance of $315,000 on the loan order is no longer required.

#22. $495 of $31,500,000 authorized by the City Council on Feb 23, 2004 for the construction of the new Main Library. This project has been successfully completed and the balance of $495 on the loan order is no longer required.

#23. $1,555 of $157,405 authorized by the City Council on May 20, 2002 for the Public Works Department Sewer Division Infiltration/Inflow Project. This project has been successfully completed and the balance of $1,555 on the loan order is no longer required.

#24. $205,000 of $305,000 authorized by the City Council on Feb 22, 1999 for the Public Works Department Sewer Division. This project has been successfully completed and the balance of $205,000 on the loan order is no longer required.

#25. $277,358 of $5,700,000 authorized by the City Council on June 4, 2007 for renovations to the War Memorial. The War Memorial renovation project has been successfully completed and the balance of $277,358 represents less than 1% of the total project cost including the State grant and other loan authorizations.

#26. $700,000 of $1,000,000 authorized by the City Council on May 18, 2009 for the remediation of soil contamination at Yerxa Road. The original estimate for the remediation of soil contamination and other environmental issues at Yerxa Road was $1,000,000. However, the bids received were considerably lower, thus creating a surplus of $700,000 in the loan authorization.

We tend to expect only requests for additional appropriations, so it’s noteworthy when the opposite is the case. Perhaps most noteworthy is the fact that the Yerxa Road project cost only 30% of what was authorized. There’s also something charming about the $495 left over from the $31,500,000 loan authorization for the Main Library. The overall cost for the new Library and related projects was actually considerably more than $31.5 million.

Unfinished Business #8. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing on Apr 6, 2011 and a follow-up public meeting on May 17, 2011 to consider a petition to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance filed by Novartis Institute for BioMedical Research, joined by M.I.T. as land owner, to allow for the creation of a new Special District 15 along a portion of Massachusetts Avenue between Albany Street and Windsor Street opposite the location of the Novartis main campus at the former Necco Building. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 6, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Mar 29, 2011. Petition expires July 5, 2011.

This zoning petition could come to a final vote at this meeting. On the other hand, the MIT/Forest City petition affecting a nearby area expires July 13 and there may be some logic in deliberating and voting on these two petitions in some unified way rather than piecemeal.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with background information on the current ownership of the land that was transferred to Neighbors for a Better Community for the benefit of the Area Four community and whether it has been or is being sold and how the benefits will accrue to the community.   Councillor Simmons

This Order really should be amended to more appropriately reflect the possibly criminal aspects of what happened with the self-serving "Neighbors for a Better Community." The Council Order only says "ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with background information on the current ownership of the land, whether it has been or is being sold and how the benefits will accrue to the community."

There really should be additional language in this Order directing the City’s Law Department to investigate and potentially prosecute those who have misappropriated funds, though technically this arrangement was made only between the developer and this ad-hoc group during the negotiations prior to a zoning vote. In a related matter, a full accounting of the $195,000 payoff made a decade ago to 13 individuals who protested a project across the street from the Alewife T Station should be made public. That money was initially offered by Oaktree to the Affordable Housing Trust ($60,000) and the Mystic River Watershed Association ($135,000), but it was placed under the control of these 13 individuals instead after some legal conflicts. Where did the money go?

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to contact relevant City officials and the officials of Belmont, Arlington and appropriate State agencies and non-profit agencies such as the Trustees of Reservations to determine if the Silver Maple Forest could be purchased for preservation.   Councillor Kelley

If there’s any of that $135,000 left (see above) it might make a good down payment on the purchase. Perhaps Councillor Kelley can provide one or two thirteenths of the answer. – Robert Winters

June 7 Update: Order #1 was greatly amended before passing on an 8-0 vote.

Amended Order #1     June 6, 2011
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Questions continue to be raised by members of the Area Four community regarding what benefits the community has received from monies and land at 131 Harvard Street, the corner of Clark and Harvard Streets, transferred to Neighbors for a Better Community (NBC) for the benefit of the Area Four community; and
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that this land has been sold by NBC for $100,000 after its rejection of an offer of $450,000, which would have resulted in the building of eight affordable homeownership units at 131 Harvard Street and the distribution of the proceeds to community groups for youth and family services; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with background information and a chronology on the ownership of the land, including the establishment and purposes of the Neighbors for a Better Community 501(C)3, the $450,000 offer from CASCAP and the recent sale for $100,000; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to contact the Attorney General’s Office with a view toward freezing all monies from the sale of the property at 131 Harvard Street and insuring that all proceeds from the sale of the property will ultimately go to the benefit of the community; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to contact the Attorney General’s Office with the request that the Attorney General’s Office investigate whether NBC has violated the obligations conferred by its 501(C)3 status and the purposes set forth in its charter to use its resources for the benefit of the community and further how NBC can be required to fulfill these obligations; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Mayor send a letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley on behalf of the City Council conveying its deep concern for the ability of a nonprofit agency to abuse the community trust and urging the Attorney General to take all possible steps to require the return to the community the benefits to which it is entitled.

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)

May 25, 2011

Cambridge Re-Precincting – May 31 Final Vote

Filed under: elections — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 6:00 pm

PROPOSED VOTING PRECINCTS AVAILABLE ONLINE

The Board of Election Commissioners met on May 24th to discuss the suggestions made at that meeting and the May 19th public hearings. After reviewing many suggestions, the Commissioners are now considering the following two maps:

May 31st Proposed Scenario 1 (with current precinct overlay in red)

May 31st Proposed Scenario 2 (with current precinct overlay in red)

The Commissioners will vote on a final map at their meeting scheduled for May 31, 2011 at 5:30pm.

In many areas of the City, voters would continue to go to the same polling places to cast their ballots as they have in the past. It should be noted that the re-precincting changes would not take effect until the 2012 elections.

Questions or comments can be sent to elections2@cambridgema.gov.

Other maps of interest:

Population by Census Block

The current map with 11 wards and 33 precincts

The May 19th proposed map with 11 wards and 33 precincts

The May 19th proposed map with the present precinct overlay in red


Editor’s Note: Each of the proposed new maps has only minimal changes from the current map. The main changes are in East Cambridge where above-average population growth over the last decade requires that precincts be adjusted so that all 33 precincts in the city have approximately equal population.

May 24, 2011

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election Calendar

Filed under: 2011 Election — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 10:01 pm

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election Calendar (and advice for candidates)

Fri, July 1:

Municipal Election Nomination Papers available at Election Commission office, 8:30am to 5:00pm.

Nomination papers will be available through the Aug 1 submission deadline, but it is advisable that a candidate pick up papers early and get started collecting signatures. The process is an excellent way for a new candidates to "get their feet wet" and acclimate to the process of asking for support. ALL pages of your nomination papers must be notarized and there are a total of three sheets. You will also want to get a current database of registered voters. This is available from the Election Commission free of charge to any candidate who has pulled nomination papers. Voter history files and the street listing are also available. If you are a legitimate candidate and want a merged file showing all currently registered Cambridge voters with their ten year voting history in Cambridge elections (if they voted – not who they voted for!!), you can request it from me free of charge.

Mon, Aug 1:

5:00pm deadline to submit nomination papers & statements of financial interest for candidates.

A minimum of 50 valid signatures must be filed and a candidate may submit up to 100 signatures. Once a voter’s signature has been recorded for a particular candidate, it cannot be used for another candidate in the same race. That is, a voter should sign for exactly one candidate for City Council and one candidate for School Committee. Candidates should submit as many signatures as possible over the minimum of 50 because it is very likely that some signatures will not be certified. It is advisable that all signatures be checked against the voter registration list before submitting them. Candidates do not have to submit all their signatures at one time, and it is advisable that signatures be submitted as each sheet becomes full. The Election Commission staff traditionally checks signatures soon after they are submitted, so it is possible to know how many signatures have been tentatively certified in case it is necessary to obtain more signatures to reach the minimum of 50 certified signatures. Actual certification is only official when the Election Commission votes to approve them.

Mon, Aug 15: 5:00pm deadline for Election Commission to certify signatures on nomination papers.
Wed, Aug 17: 5:00pm deadline for municipal candidates to file withdrawal of nomination.
Wed, Oct 19: 8:00pm deadline to register to vote in municipal election. In person registration hours are 8:30am to 8:00pm at Election Commission office only. (Mail in registration must be postmarked by Oct 19).
Mon, Oct 31:

5:00pm deadline for School Committee candidates and Political Committees to file Municipal Campaign & Political Finance Reports. (City Council candidates should consult their OCPF packets regarding depository-filing requirements).

City Council candidates are required under state law to set up a depository account at a bank. The bank will report all deposits and expenditures directly to the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). School Committee candidates are not required to set up a depository account, but they must file a campaign finance report in mid-October and at the end of the year.

Fri, Nov 4: Election Commission will be open 8:30am to 5:00pm for over-the-counter absentee voting.
Sat, Nov 5: Election Commission office will be open 9:00am to 5:00pm for over-the-counter absentee voting.
Mon, Nov 7: Noontime (12:00pm) deadline to apply for absentee ballot, either for mail-in or over-the-counter voting.
Tues, Nov 8:

Municipal Election. Polls are open 7:00am until 8:00pm.
All absentee ballots (except Overseas Absentee Ballots) must arrive at the Election Commission office by 8:00pm to be counted. Ballot count begins at Senior Center, 806 Massachusetts Avenue, Central Square after the polls close. Overseas Absentee Ballots are due by 5:00pm on Friday, November 18th, but must be postmarked by November 8th.

Overseas Absentee Ballots and Provisional Ballots will be counted on Friday, November 18th at 5:00pm.

It is expected that the Election Commission will report preliminary election results Tuesday evening (Nov 8), but this tally does not include auxiliary ballots (write-in ballots and other ballots not yet counted for a variety of reasons). These will be scanned and tabulated on Wednesday. Unofficial election results are expected to be announced on Wednesday when all of the auxiliary ballots have been included. The official election results will not be complete until any overseas absentee ballots and provisional ballots have been included on Friday, November 18.

Wed, Nov 9: 9:00am-5:00pm. Ballot count resumes at Senior Center, 806 Massachusetts Avenue, Central Square.
Fri, Nov 18: Overseas Absentee Ballots and Provisional Ballots will be counted at 5:00pm.

Regular Election Commission Office Hours: (Unless otherwise indicated)
Mondays: 8:30am to 8:00pm
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays: 8:30am to 5:00pm
Fridays: 8:30am to Noon

Holidays: The Election Commission will be closed for the following holidays:
Independence Day – Monday, July 4th
Labor Day – Monday, September 5th
Columbus Day – Monday, October 10th

Printable copy of 2011 Municipal Election Calendar

May 23, 2011

May 23, 2011 City Council Agenda Highlights – Budget Adoption

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:45 pm

May 23, 2011 City Council Agenda Highlights – Budget Adoption

The main item on the menu is the adoption of the FY2012 Budget and a variety of final authorizations to borrow money for capital projects. The Manager’s Agenda also includes responses to 12 of the 36 items on the 2011 Awaiting Report list. Another 16 items from 2010 remain on Awaiting Report. Perhaps a little more spring cleaning is in order.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-53, regarding a report on way to make the Follen Street/Little Concord Avenue intersection safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

Bicycle safety expert John Allen has a few things to say regarding the original Order as well as in response to this report. John Allen is the author of Street Smarts, a guide for safe cycling that has been adopted in several states. It is generally best to heed his advice even when it goes against current trends/fads. I know of no one who understands the nuts and bolts of bicycling safety more than John Allen.

Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-12, regarding a report on any foreseeable tax revenue implications of Vertex’s decision to leave Cambridge.

The analysis from Director of Assessment Bob Reardon indicates that the length of time associated with Vertex’ exodus as well as the continuing high demand for Cambridge lab space will result in no significant tax impacts. The sky shall not fall.

Manager’s Agenda #12. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to information regarding Information Technology (IT), which was requested at the Information Technology Department (ITD) Budget Hearing.

Though much of this report will appeal only to techies, two items are noteworthy:

• Citizen Complaint System – Enhancements to the current Cambridge Request System (CRS) to allow the public to enter a complaint directly to the work order system and receive notification of the work order ticket, an estimate of when the problem will be resolved and notification when the problem is resolved. The Complaint System will include access to a website database that shows the ticket and status.

• An Optimized Search Function – Using Google Search, enhance the search function on the City website to return more relevant information.

Manager’s Agenda #15. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to dedicated funding for GLBT Commission activities.

Manager’s Agenda #16. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-02, regarding a report on tax treatment of health benefits for couples in same sex marriages.

The first of these provides $2,500 in supplemental funds to the GLBT Commission in addition to continuing support from other departments. This may not satisfy those who would prefer a dedicated staff position, but the whole matter of staffing for this and similar commissions still needs some attention and political will. The second of these indicates that the total financial impact of this added benefit is quite manageable – the estimated cost to the City with full implementation is approximately $12,000 per year; for the School Department the cost with full implementation is estimated to be closer to $21,000 per year.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to ask the City’s private law firm to waive any statute of limitations defense regarding potential liability to Cambridge for its actions and advice in the Monteiro case. [Charter Right exercised by Vice Mayor Davis on Order Number Fourteen of May 16, 2011.]

Perhaps this Order is now moot since the expiration referenced in this Order occurred yesterday. It’s hard to know for sure what the intent of this Order was, but its author appears to be Councillor Kelley’s mentor Richard Clarey who has been at war with the City Manager for perhaps two decades. On the surface, the Order seems designed to drive a wedge between the City administration and its outside legal counsel. Specifically, if the City’s actions in the dismissal of a problematic employee were done on the advice of this legal counsel, the case can be made that City’s actions were not "retaliation." This Order suggests that the City should retain the option of suing its own legal counsel – not exactly the best move in ongoing litigation.


Budget-related items to be voted at this meeting:

Committee Report #1. Finance Committee Report for public hearings held on May 4, 2011, May 11, 2011 and May 12, 2011 relative to the General Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2012 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $439,008,170.

Committee Report #2. Finance Committee Report for a public hearing held on May 11, 2011 relative to the Water Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2012 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $14,902,620.

Committee Report #3. Finance Committee Report for a public hearing held on May 11, 2011 relative to the Public Investment Fund for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2012 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $11,613,225.

Unfinished Business #10-13, 15-17. Various orders requesting appropriation and authorization to borrow:
• $1,300,000 to provide funds for improvements to Alberico, David Nunes and Fulmore Parks and the establishment of a community garden at Riverside Press Park;
• $33,754,300 to continue sewer projects in the Harvard Square, Agassiz, Western Avenue and Alewife Watershed areas of the City.
• $2,000,000 to provide funds for improvements to several City facilities including the East Cambridge and Inman Square Fire Stations and the Ryan Garage/Simard Building at Public Works;
• $2,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of several streets included in the Complete Streets Initiative as shown in the five year street and sidewalk program;
• $2,000,000 to provide funds for the second phase of the reconstruction of the Harvard Square Tunnel (Cambridge Street Underpass);
• $300,000 to provide funds to facilitate coordination among the various consultants working on the design and planning projects for Kendall Square and perform interim repairs in the area; and
• $3,000,000 to provide funds for the architectural design and construction of an elementary school to be either rebuilt or renovated as part of the multi-year Elementary School Rebuilding Program.

Barring a delayed Rapture, it’s expected that the General Fund Budget ($439,008,170) will pass on an 8-1 vote with Councillor Kelley, as always, voting in the negative. You can expect a speech from Kelley regarding the Law Department budget, possibly conflated with the topic of Charter Right #2. Though the Annual Budget is the single most important vote by the City Council almost every year, there are basically never more than a few minor changes to the Manager’s submitted budget – regardless how much time is spent pontificating about the Budget. High priority items for individual councillors are usually worked out (when feasible) before submission of the proposed Budget, so the adoption is usually noncontroversial. If Cambridge’s financial resources were as strained as many other Massachusetts cities and towns, it might be an entirely different story.


Unfinished Business #14. Ordinance Committee Report for a public meeting held on Mar 2, 2011 to consider a zoning petition originally filed by Chestnut Hill Realty and re-filed by the City Council to create a new section that would allow for the construction of rental units in the basement levels of existing multifamily buildings in Residence C Districts within 1200 feet of Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge Street or the Red Line through a special permit process. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after May 16, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Mar 29, 2011. Petition expires May 31, 2011.

This "workforce housing" petition will likely be voted at this meeting or be allowed to expire if there are insufficient votes to pass it. As has been mentioned here many times, the amount of campaign contributions that flowed from the petitioner to several elected councillors makes this a vote worthy of scrutiny.

Committee Report #4. Ordinance Committee Report for a public hearing on Apr 6, 2011 and a follow-up public meeting on May 17, 2011 to consider a petition to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance filed by Novartis Institute for BioMedical Research, joined by M.I.T. as land owner, to allow for the creation of a new Special District 15 along a portion of Massachusetts Avenue between Albany Street and Windsor Street opposite the location of the Novartis main campus at the former Necco Building.

This will likely be Passed to a 2nd Reading tonight, perhaps with the amendments recommended by the Planning Board. When it comes to a final vote, most likely in a few weeks, it will almost certainly be passed. Together with the concurrent MIT/Forest City petition affecting an area just up the street on Mass. Ave., there will likely be a major transformation of Mass. Ave. over the next few year between Sydney Street and the railroad tracks. – Robert Winters

May 20, 2011

Response to City officials’ comments about Concord/Follen

Robert Winters has posted a comment (#3 here) to my post about bicycling issues on the May 16 City Council agenda. Robert quotes Assistant City Manager for Community Development Brian Murphy and Traffic, Parking & Transportation Director Susan Clippinger about Follen Street and Little Concord Avenue. Their response, by way of the City Manager, is addressed to the City Council at next week’s meeting.

Their response (again, in comment #3 here) addresses some of the issues with the Follen Street/Concord Avenue installation, and reflects some progress.

Serious design issues, however, will still remain:

  • The configuration still has the same blind corners.
  • Because of the location of the curb cut into the brick plaza, bicyclists traveling away from the Common must still swerve to the right, toward approaching motor traffic, to reach the curb cut at the crosswalk on the far side of Follen Street. Bicyclists entering from the brick plaza are still close to a wall which also obscures motorists’ view of them.
  • Motorists approaching on Follen Street still won’t have a stop sign — see this Google Street View (and still not in 2020)– despite the blind corners.
  • The contraflow bike lane adjacent to wrong-way parking remains.
  • There is another blind corner at the Garden Street end of the pedestrian plaza, particularly for cyclists who continue toward the Radcliffe Quadrangle on the sidewalk (and many do, though that is inadvisable).
  • The “bike box” on Concord Avenue leads to more confusion than anything else, as described here. Also, many cyclists ride east on the north sidewalk, so they can access the plaza directly, posing a risk of head-on collisions with westbound cyclists and pedestrians at the blind corner between the sidewalk and the plaza.

Contraflow bicycle travel would be safer if parking were removed from one side of Follen Street — however, the public insists on using public street space for private car storage. As a bicycling advocate and former Cambridge resident who owned a (rarely used) car and had no other place to park it than the street, I can see both sides of this issue. It is not going to go away. The people who laid out Cambridge’s streets could not foresee the deluge of private motor vehicles that would descend on the city, and had no plan either to accommodate it or to forestall it.

I do think that a very significant safety improvement could be made without removing parking, by reversing the direction of one-way motor traffic on Follen Street and Little Concord Avenue. Then cyclists headed toward the blind corner would be going in the same direction as motorists. The motorists would be going very slowly here, and cyclists could easily merge toward the center of the roadway. A curb cut into the plaza in line with the center of the roadway would avoid cyclists’ having to swerve right. This curb cut would lead cyclists traveling toward the Common to the right side of the street.

A contraflow bike lane could then be installed on the south side of Little Concord Avenue, but it would still be adjacent to wrong-way parking. I’d rather see shared-lane markings far enough from parked cars to allow a motorist to start to exit a parking space without running head-on into a cyclist or forcing that cyclist into oncoming traffic. One-way, slow streets where bicyclists are allowed to travel contraflow are common in Germany, without bike lanes, and research has demonstrated their safety.

As to Murphy’s and Clippinger’s comments:

Motor vehicle volumes on the street are very low and most drivers are ones who live there and use the street regularly. The contraflow lane was installed to improve safety for cyclists by creating a dedicated facility for them to ride in and through the presence of pavement markings to remind motorists that bicyclists are traveling there.

The low motor-vehicle volume argument is an example of what I call “bean counter” safety analysis. I have heard the same argument before from Cara Seiderman, in connection with the wrong-way contraflow lane on Scott Street. This approach offers cyclists and motorists only statistical comfort, leaving them defenseless against actually preventing a crash through their own actions — as in “well, I can’t see over the SUV parked in front of my car, but probably no cyclist is coming so I’ll pull out.”

The bike lane does serve as a buffer to help prevent collisions between cars and other cars, but it doesn’t pass the test of preventing collisions between cars and cyclists. The comforting words “dedicated facility” don’t actually describe how it works in practice. Reminding motorists that bicyclists are traveling in the bike lane doesn’t count for much if the motorists can’t see the bicyclists.

Clippinger describes a safety analysis which looked at generalities about traffic volume. The claim that the dedicated facility was installed to improve safety may describe intention, but it does not describe either the design, or the outcome. This is a crash hotspot, remember. I have described design issues, and some solutions that look rather obvious to me. The city, as usual, installed a boilerplate bike lane design without much insight into whether it actually would be functional and safe.

May 16, 2011

About bicycling issues on City Council agenda tonight, May 16, 2011

A cyclist and a motorist approach the blind corner at Concord Avenue and Follen Street

A motorist cuts off a cyclist at the blind corner of Concord Avenue and Follen Street

The city's own picture of this scene shows a cyclist happily steering straight toward a curb.

A picture of the same scene from the City's Web site shows a cyclist happily steering straight toward a curb, which is cropped out of the picture.

Looking from the opposite direction, this is the path a bicyclist must take, swerving toward traffic to reach the curb cut.

Looking from the opposite direction, this multiple-exposure photo shows the path a bicyclist must take, swerving toward Follen Street traffic to reach the curb cut at the crosswalk.

This post attempts to shed some light on agenda items on tonight’s City Council agenda.

The quoted sections are from another commenter. I’m not sure I know how to reach him, and time is pressing. I don’t know whether I have permission to use his name, so I won’t. The unindented paragraphs  are my own. We’ll start with the other person who commented.

Two of the three items on the city council agenda are interesting examples of problems related to bicycle infrastructure that has been implemented over the past several years.  The third is simply a request to fill potholes, but includes an ignorant comment about bicycles needing to ride near the curb (not true according to Massachusetts law or Cambridge ordinance).

That is agenda item O-7 on the page linked here

The first bicycle facility problem is a contra-flow lane through a blind corner where motorists have no expectation that there will be contra-flow traffic of any sort as they round the corner on a one-way street.

http://bit.ly/iAHCfU

That is agenda item O-3 on the page linked here.

The street view is looking south on Follen Street as it intersects (Little) Concord Avenue.  The bike lane crosses in a contraflow manner from left to right, and then continues across the small brick plaza to the right to join with Garden Street and the continuation of Concord Avenue.  The intersection just beyond the plaza is the same one where Cambridge has installed a bike box critiqued by John Allen

(http://bit.ly/jQN595).

The contraflow bike lane is adjacent to wrong-way parking, another odd feature of this installation — see this for a description and explanation of wrong-way parking:

http://bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/contraflow.htm#scottst

Upon reaching the corner, bicyclists have to ride out past a stop bar and stop sign before they can see around the corner. A stop sign requires two actions, a stop and a yield. The yield is what actually prevents a collision — but it is only possible where you can see conflicting traffic.

Many if not most of the bicyclists approaching this intersection are Harvard students headed up to the Radcliffe quadrangle. Are we to assume that they aren’t bright enough to figure out that they must yield? The problem is that nobody ever instructed them, and many have little bicycling experience as they suddenly find themselves dependent on a bicycle for transportation. Also, the stop bar isn’t where there’s anything to yield to unless a pedestrian happens to be crossing — it encourages running the stop sign, sort of like traffic ju-jitsu: aha– fooled ya!.

See Google Street View looking toward the stop sign:

http://tinyurl.com/4yfz9bc

I have a discussion of this contraflow bike lane in the page linked below this paragraph. The third photo down the page shows the stop sign. I prepared the page linked below years ago, shortly after the installation. This was clearly going to be a problem location.

http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/harvardsq/litlconc.htm

The curb ramp on the far side of the intersection is located at the end of the crosswalk rather than in line with the bike lane. Bicyclists must ride toward approaching traffic to reach the ramp.

Bicyclists coming in the opposite direction off the little pedestrian plaza are hidden by a wall and subject to similar risks. This entire treatment is a prime example of Cambridge’s principle of Design by Wishful Thinking.

The second problem is at a rather unremarkable intersection, so it is not clear to me why there would be issues.

See Council Order O-19 on the page linked here.

http://bit.ly/kQWgBQ

The street view is looking south on Ellery Street as it approaches Broadway.  Ellery is a narrow one-way street with a bike lane.  Traffic is typically slow, but can be heavy at rush hour.  Broadway is a two-way narrow connecting through street with parking and no bicycle infrastructure in this area.  Traffic typically runs about 25-30mph, slower and heavier at rush hour.  The intersection is also at the corner of a local public high school campus.  Neither street is difficult to cycle on if you have at least modest traffic experience.

There is a flashing yellow and red overhead signal indicating a stop sign for Ellery Street entering from the north.  I tried to find data related to the several accidents cited, but did not see anything apparent on the Cambridge city web site.  I can speculate that most of the car/bike accidents are probably due to scofflaw behavior — either bicyclists in the Ellery bike lane not heeding the stop sign as they continue across Broadway, or wrong-way riders in the Ellery Street bike lane illegally approaching Broadway from the south.  Also likely would be standard right hook, left cross, and failure to yield collisions caused by motorists, but I don’t see why those would be any worse at this intersection.

I see a double-whammy right-hook provocation for bicyclists headed south on Ellery Street, in that the bike lane on the far side of the intersection is to the left of parking (and in the door zone, as is usual in Cambridge), while the bike lane on the near side is at the curb and carried all the way up to the intersection. So, bicyclists are encouraged to overtake motorists on the right, then merge left inside the intersection where motorists turn right.  I think that the high traffic volume and prevalence of high-school students probably also account for the number of crashes. There probably are scofflaw crashes too. Yes, it would be very interesting to see details so as to get a handle on what is actually happening here.

I’m not looking for any answers, but I thought people on this list might be interested in what Cambridge lawmakers are thinking.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress