Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:20 pm

June 7, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

It’s primarily routine stuff this week, though I suppose we could be treated to another “International Night” as part of Councillor Decker’s El Salvador Order #8. Meanwhile, back in Cambridge, we have the following, starting with two Planning Board reports on pending zoning amendments:

City Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the green building zoning petition. [The Planning Board recommends adoption of the petition as proposed.]

This matter will presumably be passed to a 2nd Reading with expected ordination later this month. Not quite ready for ordination (and still in committee) is the zoning petition affecting a portion of Kendall Square. An interesting aspect of this is the never-ending effort to reinvent Kendall Square in the wake of unenlightened urban planning/renewal that depopulated the area. The petition primarily sets out to permit the Broad Institute to build another life science building instead of the housing previously permitted by the Planning Board. The height limit of the district is 230 feet – the highest in Cambridge.

The Committee Report indicates the City Council’s desire to repopulate the area, i.e. build housing in addition to tax-generating commercial buildings, yet no direction is provided. A proposed Order in the report asks the Community Development Department to identify housing sites in the MXD district, yet it seems likely that housing may never be built in this district. If it were to be built, Councillor Kelley wants to ban future residents from owning cars. Why stop there? Why not go for broke and dictate their diets as well? Sometimes it seems as though Cambridge elected officials will never be satisfied until they can control everything right down to the jokes you’re permitted to laugh at.

City Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Boston Properties Petition to amend the MXD District. [The Planning Board “enthusiastically” supports this zoning change which would facilitate the Broad Institute’s interest in expanding near its headquarters in Cambridge.]

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 11, 2010 to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance in Article 14 Mixed Use Development Cambridge Center to create a “Smart Growth Underutilized Area” in the vicinity of Broadway, Main and Ames Streets and the site of the West parking garage on Ames Street.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and Boston Properties to report back to the Ordinance Committee of the City Council on June 9th, 2010, on whether the ground floor retail proposed by Boston Properties would be of the size and nature suitable for a grocery store, convenience store, or small foodstuffs boutique.   Councillor Cheung

Councillor Cheung’s Order is well-intentioned, but it seems like the most that will come out of it would be a convenience store for the IPad crowd. Let’s not forget that there used to be an actual neighborhood in Kendall Square, including a school (and I don’t mean MIT).

Kendall Square 1903

City Manager’s Agenda #16. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the acceptance and approval of the layout of portions of certain street in the North Point area of Cambridge.

It will be interesting to see how North Point actually develops after the recession passes and the Green Line is relocated and extended. In spite of the seemingly nice landscaping, most plans I’ve seen suggest a sterile, isolated environment. The best thing, in my opinion, would be to create direct roadway connections through North Point to East Somerville, the Inner Basin area, and Charlestown, but the isolationist planners would never permit such a thing. It might cause people to actually cut through this new North Point neighborhood en route to other places – like almost all other non-gated neighborhoods.

Resolution #14. Best wishes to the Cambridge Consumers’ Council on their upcoming event to recognize Shredding Day and declare July 31, 2010 as “Shredding Day in the City of Cambridge.”   Mayor Maher

The full text of City Council Orders is provided, but not so for resolutions. It makes you wonder what exactly Shredding Day is. Then again, we just celebrated Laser Day on May 16 as a result of a recent resolution from Councillor Cheung.

Resolution #24. Congratulations to Beth Rubenstein on her new position as Director of Campus Planning and Development at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell and thank her for her thirteen years to the City of Cambridge.   Mayor Maher, Councillor Decker

This came as a bit of a surprise. Best wishes to Beth as she heads off to her next challenge. This is reminiscent of when Kathy Spiegelman made a similar move from the Community Development Department to Harvard University. Between these two heads of CDD, there was Michael Rosenberg (with whom I biked the route of the old Middlesex Canal last fall) and Susan Schlesinger (who still serves on the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Board and the Community Preservation Act Committee). It will be interesting to see who succeeds Beth Rubenstein as head of the Community Development Department – a position of considerable influence in determining the City’s prioritization of commercial development, housing, open space, transportation, and more.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to investigate establishing a Cambridge Carbon Offset Fund to receive contributions that may be used for the purpose of reducing Cambridge greenhouse gas emissions, including the possibility of using these funds for building retrofits, planting trees, or other relevant activities.   Vice Mayor Davis

I’m only barely beginning to understand things like “cap and trade” and a possible “carbon tax” on businesses/industries, but if it’s appropriate to view such things as a kind of currency, then maybe it’s not such a good idea to create local currency. Things could get complicated enough if and when the U.S. Congress gets around to enacting something. As a side note, I recently attended a meeting organized by GreenPort of a panel of experts discussing various aspects of some proposed regulations growing out of concerns about climate change. It was interesting to see what are essentially capitalist solutions being presented to an audience that included some Marxist-leaning Cambridge activists who might well prefer to just nationalize every industry or regulate them into oblivion.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update on the City’s tree inventory and establishment of a “volunteer corps” of citizens interested in helping maintain and update the City’s tree inventory.   Councillor Seidel

It’s a great idea to try to marshal volunteer labor to help the City in a number of areas. However, it is easy to imagine a situation where activists of one sort or another would use the opportunity to create conflict rather than cooperation. If that potential problem can be ironed out, there would be great benefit in having an unpaid army of residents acting cooperatively with City workers for the benefit of all.

Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update as to the status of the tents currently set up in Flagstaff Park, including the number of such structures allowed on the site, who is residing in them, and the length of time these structures are allowed to remain on the site.   Councillor Seidel

The phrasing of this Order is curious. It asks about the number of structures allowed on the site and related matters, but one would surmise that the answer to that question is zero. The real issue is whether the City will ever take action to clear out the site – not the identity of its squatters or their residential tenure at that location. — Robert Winters

May 25, 2010

Message to Susan Clippinger, Director of Traffic, Parking, & Transportation

Filed under: Cambridge government — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 2:42 pm

May 25: Message to Susan Clippinger, Director of Traffic, Parking, & Transportation

Annoying as it is to have parking meters in front of my house at which you personally park YOUR car all day on most days, it is especially annoying when one of your thoroughly unprofessional parking officers chooses to harass me for pulling up in front of my house to unload groceries for all of two minutes without feeding the meter. When I asked her to just cut me some slack, she circled back to the meter getting ready to write me a ticket. She told me to take it up with you, so I am.

From which pool exactly do you draw your employees, Susan? Recent news stories suggest it’s a rather shallow pool. This particular “officer” is apparently well known for her harassment of people. I feel certain that now that she has matched my address, my face, and my vehicle I can expect to get “special treatment” from her at every turn. Perhaps I’ll point her out to you when next we meet. In the meantime, perhaps you’ll finally give some consideration to a policy regarding people without driveways and with parking meters in front of their homes. In my case, the primary users of the metered spaces on Broadway and on Inman Street are those coming to visit your very own department at 344 Broadway. Would it be so difficult for you to instruct your officers to cut some slack for the actual residents of these streets who need to occasionally unload groceries? Would that kill you, Susan?

Councillor Toomey has raised this issue on numerous occasions and you’ve ignored him every time. No wonder most elected officials hold you in such low regard. If the state-mandated Traffic Board existed, I would petition them, but you have chosen to ignore state law for many years now – leaving citizens no recourse other than to beg you when they feel a regulation should be changed. In the meantime, just cut us a little slack, OK? – Robert Winters

May 24, 2010

May 24, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:27 pm

May 24, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight is Budget Adoption Night at City Hall. The related Finance Committee reports are these:

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for public hearings held on May 5, 2010, May 13, 2010 and May 19, 2010 relative to the General Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $426,629,125.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 13, 2010 relative to the Water Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $16,416,120.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 13, 2010 relative to the Public Investment Fund for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $9,935,015.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a meeting held on May 12, 2010 for the purpose of providing a summary to community leaders of the city’s current and proposed budget and an explanation of how state and federal budget cuts have impacted the city’s budget.

This year’s budget hearings were not controversial except perhaps for the School Department budget which eliminates several clerical positions. That matter still lies “On the Table” though apparently some resolution must be in the works as indicated by the lack of rancor reported at the May 19 School Department budget hearing. Perhaps some contractual guarantees prevailed or maybe positions elsewhere in Cambridge government were found in response to lobbying by city councillors and school committee members.

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-64, regarding the sale of the Sullivan Courthouse. [“In light of the courthouse’s great size (460,000 square feet), lack of parking associated with the building, and its out-of-date architectural style, I do not see any public reuse for the structure.” … “Should the property be sold to and redeveloped by a private entity local zoning would apply. We have expressed our willingness to work closely with any owner to develop a project of more moderate height and scale; with active ground floor uses; including some portion of residential use, in keeping with the neighborhood context; and with appropriate parking supply based on building uses.”]

The referenced courthouse building really is out of place and out of time – the product of a misplaced sense of progress decades ago. A modest-scale private mixed residential/commercial/office redevelopment is probably the best reuse for the site. Any proposals that have been floated for a public marketplace in the Lechmere area should happen in and around the existing commercial corridors along Cambridge Street and the O’Brien Highway (the former Bridge Street). There must surely also be a way to integrate the court functions that were previously in the Sullivan Courthouse into existing and new buildings adjacent to the historic court buildings in the Lechmere area.

City Manager’s Agenda #19. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-77, regarding a report on a review of investments and business practices engaged in by the City to determine what activities are conducted with the State of Arizona. [“Following a review of the City’s current listing of CD’s purchased through Morgan Stanley, it was determined that a $100,000 CD was purchased on Apr 9, 2009 from the Asian Bank located in Phoenix, Arizona. The CD has a maturity date of July 9, 2010, and will not be renewed after reaching maturity. Our representative at Morgan Stanley has been instructed to refrain from purchasing any further investments in the State of Arizona.”]

Not unexpectedly, the City’s Arizona investments amounted to pocket change. The City Council has (thankfully) not yet voted on a meaningless policy position on the recent Arizona law regarding suspected illegal immigrants.

Resolution #22. Happy Birthday wishes to a special Cantabrigian.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Cheung, Councillor Decker, Councillor Kelley, Mayor Maher, Councillor Reeves, Councillor Seidel and Councillor Toomey

Hmmm….. Henrietta Davis had a birthday on May 18 and she’s the only city councillor not listed as a sponsor. Could she be that “special Cantabrigian?” Had this been Councillor Reeves’ birthday, he would have been the lead sponsor.

Resolution #36. Congratulations to Littane Bien-Aime on being selected a 2010 Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Fellow following a nationwide contest.   Councillor Cheung

We hope that the Rangel award is not in recognition of ethical violations such as using political connections to evade New York City housing laws or accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean.

Order #7. That the City Council Committee on Transportation, Traffic and Parking schedule a public meeting on the City’s traffic calming and bike facility programs.   Councillor Kelley

It’s likely nothing will come of this, but Councillor Kelley is to be commended for directing some attention toward the generally unquestioned and arbitrary decisions of City transportation planners.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the property known as the Norton Woods that has been reopened after being closed due to flooding with a newly instituted no dogs policy.   Councillor Decker

The bottom line is that this area is not public property and the owners (American Academy of Arts and Sciences) can institute any rules they wish. They’ve been great in allowing public access to the property and though it may be worth politely asking a question or two about their policy on dogs, ultimately it’s their call.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to inform the City Council on how the Cambridge Historical Commission, the Cambridge Room of the Cambridge Public Library, the Cambridge Historical Society, and Cambridge Community Television might work together to digitize the various Cambridge historical collections and determine how these various entities will work together to preserve Cambridge history of the past, current happenings, social history, architectural history and preservation, and other matters of historical significance to Cambridge.   Councillor Reeves

This is a timely and useful Order from Councillor Reeves. Though it’s unclear why CCTV is included in the mix, the fact is that we now have a proper Cambridge Room at the new Main Library and there’s a clear need to preserve and archive material and to make much of it digitally available. A professional archivist was reportedly to be hired, but it’s not clear from the FY2011 budget whether this has actually taken place or what the job responsibilities would be for this person and for others already working in the Historical Commission who might play a role in such a project. This is an area where volunteer assistance and a cooperative arrangement with the Cambridge Historical Society (which is already engaged in digital archiving) may be worth considering.

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a delineation of the boundaries of Joan Lorentz Park.   Councillor Seidel

Normally this might be just a formality, but with the new Library, reconstruction at the high school, and pedestrian connections being reconfigured around these tightly integrated uses, it’s worth clarifying who’s responsible for maintaining which pieces of this jigsaw puzzle. In some respects, everything outside of the buildings has the feel of a single contiguous park, but clarity today may be helpful 20 or 30 years from now should there be future plans to reconfigure the space.

Committee Report #6. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on May 6, 2010 to consider a petition filed by the City Council on behalf of the Green Building/Zoning Task Force to amend the zoning ordinance to encourage green building practices in Cambridge.

Normally, a committee report like this doesn’t really stand out, but there is one notable record of public testimony in the report worth highlighting:

Guy Asaph, 29 Oakdale Street, said there is no reason for anyone to invest $30,000 in a solar system. A $25,000 investment would produce $25 in electricity. There is no incentive. He said that if we want to make energy issues seriously, there have to be real incentives. The proposals are nice, but they do not go far enough. The greenest buildings are big buildings, so up-zoning and providing incentives are the best ways to make Cambridge buildings more energy efficient.

Though the units of measurement are clearly misstated here (an investment of $25,000 is a one-time cost, but it’s unclear whether the $25 in electricity is per month, per year, or over the useful life of the investment), it is useful to be clear about whether there is much bang for the buck in some proposed energy projects like solar panels and wind turbines. I have heard credible testimony suggesting that the payback for energy generation projects like these are very minimal in a Cambridge context, while energy conservation measures (such as insulation and higher efficiency) usually have clear economic and environmental benefits. Where should the investment money be concentrated? Insulation and efficiency seem to be the smart choices much more than on-site power generation. Cambridge is not the same as Hull or Oklahoma (“where the wind comes sweeping down the plain”).

Mr. Aseph doesn’t stop at questioning the economics of solar installations. He also makes the case for packing more and more higher density buildings into the City. Considering the fact that he develops real estate for a living, this is a rather self-serving vision (to say the least) even if there may be a grain of truth in his wish to upzone the city ever higher. — Robert Winters

May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:05 pm

May 10, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Manager’s Agenda tonight features significant public investment items – primarily authorizations to borrow for infrastructure projects. Here’s the list:

Mgr #8. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,250,000 to continue sewer projects in the Harvard Square, Cambridgeport, and Alewife Watershed areas of the City.

Mgr #9. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $700,000 to provide funds to replace the existing artificial turf on the soccer field at Danehy Park as well as resurfacing the 400 meter running track.

Mgr #10. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,000,000 to provide funds to fund the reconstruction of JFK Street between Eliot and Brattle Streets.

Mgr #11. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,500,000 to provide funds to fund the first phase of the reconstruction of the Harvard Square Tunnel (Cambridge Street Underpass).

Mgr #12. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $500,000 to provide funds to fund the design of the restoration of the Kendall Square area on Main Street between Broadway and Ames Street.

Mgr #13. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,500,000 to provide funds for improvements to several City buildings including the East Cambridge and Inman Square Fire Stations, Ryan Garage at Public Works, Central Square Library, and several elementary schools.

There should be “suitably engrossed” awards in gilded folders given to city councillors who generate excessive numbers of suitably engrossed resolutions at (I believe) around $5 a pop. This week’s runner-up award goes to Mayor Maher for his 11 identical resolutions to various people for “passing the Massachusetts Department of Public Health written and performance test for the position of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA).” The top prize this week goes to Councillor Simmons for her 51 (I’m not kidding) nearly identical resolutions to people for their “work on the Prince Hall Memorial Committee.” Good thing she has that aide to help with such important “research” matters like this. By the way, did I mention that the single biggest jump in department budget over a five year span was for the City Council. So many resolutions, so little time.

Councillor Decker has another Vanity Order this week:

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to determine with due consideration for, among other things, return on investment, to what extent it is reasonable to not participate in any business activities substantially connected with the State of Arizona, municipalities in Arizona, and other business entities in Arizona or conducting substantial business in Arizona.   Councillor Decker

Regardless of the merits of the Arizona law, it’s arrogant for an elected official in the northeast to weigh in on matters in a border state whose issues she can’t even begin to appreciate. Besides, it’s hard to imagine the City of Cambridge having any investments in Arizona, so this really is just a Vanity Order.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and commission heads to develop a standard set of resources, facility privileges, tools, and barebones operating budget the unfunded commissions may use in their work of enacting Council policy.  Councillor Cheung

Essentially all Cambridge citizen boards and commissions work closely with one or more City departments which provide support for these boards. Councillor Cheung’s Order focuses primarily on “the capability for all commissions to post and maintain an email distribution list” and seems to suggest that the capacity for this should be made available on City servers rather than via such services as YahooGroups and GoogleGroups. This does raise the inevitable issue of public records. Clearly, if City servers are involved then any and all communications are potentially available as public records. It’s not clear if this is the case for communications among members on outside servers. Another consideration is that with an outside service the group “owner” can freely moderate the group and even delete some communications. This probably would not be permitted if hosted on City servers as it may constitute “destroying a public record.” Perhaps things are better left as they are.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to update the City Council on the impact of the MWRA water pipe rupture on the Charles River in Cambridge.  Councillor Seidel

Actually, Councillor Seidel’s Order asks about two incidents: the recent MWRA break in Weston and a February 2010 diesel spill in the Lower Charles River Basin. While I cannot speak to the latter, I can say with some confidence that the Weston break had no impact whatsoever on Cambridge other than to highlight the great advantage of having our own independent water supply. As it turns out, I was leading a group of 40 hikers that day (May 1) along a section of the Sudbury Aqueduct in Wellesley and telling the history of Boston Water and about how this aqueduct was last used about 35 years ago and was still maintained for use in a “catastrophic emergency”. Little did I know that such an emergency was unfolding even as I spoke and that by day’s end the Sudbury Aqueduct would be back in service during the emergency. — Robert Winters

May 4, 2010

Jessica Eckhardt’s conversation with Nicole Freedman and Jeff Rosenblum

Filed under: cycling,planning — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 10:28 pm

Following the Urban Revolutions event on April 28 (see previous post on this blog), Cambridge resident Jessica Eckhardt spoke with Boston’s Bicycle Program director, Nicole Freedman. They had known each other as members of the bicycle racing community. Eckhardt also spoke with Jeff Rosenblum, who works in the Cambridge Community Development Department and who was a co-founder of Livable Streets. Following (you may have to click on a “more” prompt just below this) is Eckhardt’s account of the conversation.

(more…)

“Urban Revolutions” event at MIT

Filed under: cycling,MIT,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 4:43 pm

What follows here is a very long post, but Robert Winters has given me a free rein. I haven’t seen any other news coverage of the “Urban Revolutions” event, so here goes. Despite its length, this is not a transcript — though I quote the speakers liberally, I have summarized much of the session. If you see a “more” prompt just below, click on it so see the rest of my account. Thanks Robert!
(more…)

May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 10:40 am

May 3, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Manager will give an overview of the FY2011 City Budget early in tonight’s meeting followed by the usual platitudes from councillors. The Budget Hearings start this Wednesday (see schedule below). Word is going around that hordes of townies will be at tonight’s meeting for Councillor Toomey’s tabled Order from the previous meeting. [That the City Manager is requested to restore funding for School Department clerical positions until a proper and negotiated process can be achieved with the Cambridge School Department and Unions representing the employees, and to report back to the City Council on the progress.] School Committee members have commented that these changes occurred only after appropriate process and that these staff reductions are consistent with a long-held commitment to cut back on excesses in central administration within the School Department. It would seem that some of these jobs may have their roots in political friendship. More significant is the question of whether it is appropriate for the Cambridge City Council to intervene in personnel issues within the School Department and under the supervision of that other elected body – the Cambridge School Committee.

There are also these other items of minor interest:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of offering closed captioning for streaming video on the City’s website.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor Decker

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of updating the City of Cambridge’s website with automatic translation software.   Councillor Cheung

Very well to make this information accessible to all, but it does raise the issue of diminishing returns. How much additional investment and staff support will it take to provide these marginal benefits?

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to investigate the possibility of making the property at 93 Kirkland Street part of Cambridge’s affordable housing stock through purchase and renovation by the City or by a qualified non-profit.   Councillor Seidel

Once again, the knee-jerk response is that taxpayer money should be spent without question on “affordable housing” projects. Maybe it’s a good idea, but taxpayers should really question where their money is going.

Communications and Reports from City Officers #1. A communication was received from Mayor David P. Maher, transmitting changes in the membership of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee. [Councillor Decker has been removed from this committee, per her request. Councillor Simmons has been appointed to this committee. The committee now consists of Councillors Seidel (Chair), Cheung, and Simmons.]

The entertaining thing about this communication is that Councillor Decker wishes to cut down on her committees because of “the breadth of work I expect to be engaged in as Chair of the Housing, Health, and Finance Committee.” Suffice to say that Councillor Decker’s record of attendance at Council committees has been at or near the bottom for as long as she’s been on the City Council. It will be interesting to see the “breadth of work” of which she speaks. She will now serve on just 6 committees while all of her Council colleagues will serve on 8, 9 or 10 committees. — Robert Winters

Wed, May 5

9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget. This hearing to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)

Police Department
License Commission
Mayor’s Office
Executive
City Council
City Clerk
Law		 Finance Admin.
Budget
Personnel
Assessing
Purchasing
Auditing
Treasury/Revenue		 Information Technology
Employee Benefits
General Services
Election Commission
Public Celebrations
Reserve
Animal Commission		 Fire Department
Traffic, Parking & Transportation
Police Review & Advisory Board
Inspectional Services
Weights & Measures
Electrical
Emergency Communications

Date changes for individual departments may occur.

Wed, May 12
6:00pm The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public meeting for the purposes of providing a summary to community leaders of the city’s current and proposed budget and an explanation of how state and federal budget cuts have impacted the city’s budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, May 13
9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

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

Date changes for individual departments may occur.

Wed, May 19
6:00pm The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 School Department Budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, May 20
9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget (if necessary). This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 24
5:30pm City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber) – Expected date of Budget Adoption.

April 30, 2010

Concord Avenue: City’s position, and comments

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,planning — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 3:20 pm

On April 27, Kelly Dunn, Community Relations Manager of the Cambridge Department of Public Works, sent the e-mail below to a number of people. One was Jessica Eckhardt, who lives near the project area. The sections below in quotes are Ms. Dunn’s e-mail and the other sections are Ms. Eckhardt’s and my response.

Dear Jessica,

Thank you for your input and suggestions regarding the cycle tracks on Concord Ave.  I hope I can address some of your concerns.

A few years ago a comprehensive planning study of the area was completed.  The Concord-Alewife Study examined the current support system for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, and looked at how we might enhance access through additional connections in the Alewife Quadrangle.  I encourage you to take a look at the study:  http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/concalew/concale_plan_all.pdf

We like what that study says, but on the other hand, your statement chttp://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/concalew/concale_plan_all.pdfhanges the subject. That study contains no mention of “raised bike lanes”.

As projects move forward, we hope to be able to implement some of the connections noted in the study. Regarding the overall design of Concord Avenue, there are a few things to note. The reconstruction that will happen is a complete right-of-way reconstruction, with reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs and drainage systems; this would happen in any case and is not being done specifically to create the raised bike lane.

So, the “raised bike lane” just sorta happened?  No, the City is consciously taking advantage of the need to reconstruct the street and sewers to create the so-called “raised bike lanes”.

Why the quotes? By definition, both technical and vernacular, there is no such thing as a “raised bike lane”. Any lane is part of the roadway, at roadway level. A bike path is separate from the roadway, and standards for safe design apply to it too.  Under the proposed design, neither the street nor the paths meet design standards that apply in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The raised bike lane is just that: bicyclists will be in the exact same location as they are now.

That statement turns attention away from the issues by discussing location instead of behavior. The statement makes a host of assumptions, first of which is that cyclists only need to ride in the bike lane. Yes, you can be in the exact same place, but your options are very different if you are behind a curb.

Consider access to and from the eastbound “raised bike lane.”  To reach it from most entrances on the north side, cyclists will have to cross most of the way, dismount, lift their bicycles over a curb and remount. Eastbound cyclists on the south side will have to hop down a curb at most places to turn left. The difficulty and danger of crossing the street will strongly encourage wrong-way riding, a practice which Cambridge has correctly disparaged in the past and is ignoring with this project.

Also, cyclists may now merge out of the bike lane to allow motorists to turn right without conflict. This option is denied with the “raised bike lanes”.

This is not a sidewalk path and bicyclists and pedestrians are separated by a street furniture zone, where street trees and street lights are located.

We do anticipate pedestrians spilling over or choosing to use the “raised bike lane” for travel – also cyclists using the pedestrian strip. In some places, the available width for both is only 10 feet. Still, the most disturbing issue with riding on a sidewalk-level facility is not so much the conflicts with pedestrians. It is the conflicts with motor vehicles — when riding the right way and much more so when riding the wrong way.

No matter what the design, the north side of Concord Avenue cannot be a safe location for the novice and child cyclists the City wants to attract. There is heavy turning and crossing traffic, at way too many locations. We have suggested extending the multi-use path on the south side — which has its benefits and drawbacks — the most notable benefit is safety for the inexperienced and child cyclists, with only one driveway crossing in the same distance.

At intersections and driveways, the facility is a regular in-street bike lane.

This is inaccurate and reveals a serious misunderstanding. The design drawings show the facility coming down to street level within a few feet of each street or driveway. To operate as a bike lane, it would have to come down at least 100 feet farther away, so that cyclists and motorists could negotiate lane position before and after the intersection. The City is not unfamiliar with this concept, which it used in its Vassar Street project. With, on average, one driveway or street every 100 feet, allowing merging distance around intersections and driveways would leave the westbound facility a bike lane just as it is now, for almost the entire length of the project.

There will be added signage reminding motorists to yield to cyclists.

Right-turning motorists will have to stop and wait, rather than merging into the bike lane before turning. Expect congestion, and mistakes. Signs or no signs, left-turning motorists will be unable to see past vehicles in the westbound lane. The best a left-turner can do is to creep forward until his or her vehicle’s hood provides a warning to cyclists that they need to yield.

There is nothing about the design that changes where cyclists travel over a standard bicycle lane.

This statement ignores the need to cross the street, among others, as already discussed.

Turning movements are always a concern, on all roads, whether there are bicycle facilities or not. There is no evidence that a raised bike lane with this design would make the situation worse; to the contrary, it increases the visibility of the cyclist, as well as decreases the likelihood of other dangerous behaviors such as motor vehicles parking in the bike lane.

That is an astonishing statement. Such evidence has existed for decades. It follows from human factors analysis (e.g, that drivers do not have x-ray vision, as already discussed), and from safety studies on both sides of the Atlantic. See for example this review of research results. And, a recent, extensive study in Copenhagen confirmed substantially-increased crash rates for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike.

If everything about positioning is the same, how can a height difference of 6 inches — or less, when the facility slants down before a street or driveway — make the cyclists more visible, especially to left-turning traffic? Will the child cyclists be more visible? Will any cyclists be visible when to the right of vans, trucks and buses?

As to your concern about motor vehicles parking in the bike lane, there is ample parking in the adjacent industrial area, and besides, the bike lane is too narrow to park in. Parking there is rare, illegal and subject to fines and towing. If there is no bike lane, any illegal parking will be in the travel lane instead or with one wheel up over the curb in the “raised bike lane”.

It’s important for cyclists to feel safe; especially riders with children and others who would not choose to ride on major streets with high volumes and high speeds of traffic.

We find it very distressing that the City proposes to attract unsuspecting cyclists including children onto a facility that crosses 24 driveways and 7 streets in 3000 feet, with known and serious crash risks, by making them feel safe — when the option exists for a path with only one, signalized intersection on the other side of the same street. Is it acceptable to make people feel safe when actually creating hazards for them? There is a vernacular term for this action: “Pied Piper” and also a legal term.”attractive nuisance.” We vote to re-examine the project on the basis of true safety, rather than an illusion of safety.

The City is committed to supporting and promoting sustainable transportation, and making it available and accessible to all. Raised bicycle lanes have been proven to be safe, effective facilities, which enable more people to choose to bicycle.

We support sustainable transportation too. We ride our bicycles almost every day, and we desire real safety improvements. Please cite your sources and clarify whether you are stating that a “raised bike lane” with so many intersections and immediately behind a high curb has been shown safe.

The project will also have important benefits to other users, especially pedestrians, who will have a greater buffer from motor vehicle traffic and improved street crossings. It is also expected that narrowing the curb-to-curb width of the street will help to reduce speeds, which are currently excessive.

Then we would be trying to use the cyclists and the car-bike conflicts as a shield, sacrificing one group for the benefit of the other. See especially the table on page 3 of the Copenhagen study, which was limited to the most carefully-designed street-corridor separated bicycle facilities. It found streets with these facilities more hazardous than other streets — for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike. Many features of the Concord Avenue design increase the hazard far beyond that of the Copenhagen facilities. Please, Ms. Dunn, show us your evidence to the contrary. We can’t just take your word for what you say, when public safety is at stake.

Yes, speeds are sure to decrease when the motorists are brought to a complete halt to wait to turn right across the “raised bike lane” and to a crawl to try to avoid collisions when turning left.  Speeds could easily be controlled with traffic enforcement or with other measures, for example, raised pedestrian crossings.

One of the primary goals of the project is to improve conditions for people walking and biking on Concord Avenue, while maintaining vehicular capacity.  The number of travel lanes will remain the same as today.

A “raised bike lane” is not a bike lane. The number of lanes will be reduced by two. A cyclist, who has the right to use the roadway under the laws of the Commonwealth, will no longer have eastbound and westbound bike lanes on the road. Also, capacity for motor vehicles will be reduced because motorists will have to stop before turning right, and will have to creep forward (we hope) while turning left, to yield to cyclists they can not see.

The conditions for cyclists and pedestrians will deteriorate with the snow in winter and no place to put it.  Even if the “raised bike lane” is cleared, it will remain partly coated with slush and ice.

A community meeting was held last spring and the project has been reviewed by community groups, the city’s bicycle and pedestrian committees, the disabilities commission, and the committee on public planting.

The Cambridge bicycle program likes push the envelope by imitating European practice. People who are not familiar with the research literature can easily be convinced that the grass is always greener in Copenhagen, and that all such innovation is positive. This project also plays into the widespread public misperception that bicycling on sidewalks is safe. Some European designs are faulty, and this project in addition reflects a poor imitation of European practice. It will create a situation far worse than possible alternatives, and a perception of safety without really increasing safety. That is not positive innovation.

I (Jessica) am requesting meeting minutes and a copy of the flyer that was supposedly distributed around my neighborhood. I also ask why Massbike was not informed of the construction project.

If you would like, I can add your email to my public notification list; you can also check the progress of upcoming work at our website as well: http://www.cambridgema.gov/TheWorks/

Thank you again for your comments.  I will be sending out periodic construction updates at the work progresses.  If at any time you run into issues, feel free to contact me or Dan Vallee, project manager.

Sincerely,

Kelly

Kelly Dunn

Community Relations Manager

Cambridge Department of Public Works
147 Hampshire Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
T:  617.349.4870
F:  617.349.4814

kdunn *at* cambridgema *dot* gov

www.cambridgema.gov/theworks

[All contact information here is already available on the Internet; e-mail address has been altered to avoid contributing to harvesting by spam robots.]

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress