Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

September 27, 2012

But seriously, folks

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

But seriously, folks.

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

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

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

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

Is this what civic activism has descended to? – RW

July 21, 2012

Looking even further back at North Point – and an invitation

Filed under: Cambridge,East Cambridge,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:17 pm

Come for a walk
Sun, July 22, 2012. Charles River’s Edge: Cambridge-Charlestown-Boston.
Approx. 5-6mi. walk via North Point Park, brand new North Bank Bridge, USS Constitution, and Charles River Dam. Meet at 10:00am at the gazebo at Cambridgeside Galleria Mall fountain. Bring lunch and desire to explore. We’ll cover the past, present, and future plans for this historic area. L Robert Winters ((617) 661-9230; Robert@rwinters.com).

[This is listed with AMC Local Walks, but it’s open to all.]

Here are a few historical images from 1990 of this area:

View toward North Point from bridge
View toward North Point from Craigie Bridge – 1990
North Point Park site - 1990
Site of future North Point Park – 1990
Group Shot 1990
North Point Visit (1990) with Michael Rosenberg, Alice Wolf,
Tim Toomey, Robert Healy, Sheila Russell and others
Fred Salvucci & Alice Wolf
Fred Salvucci & Alice Wolf at North Point – 1990
Liz Epstein & Fred Salvucci
Liz Epstein & Fred Salvucci at North Point – 1990
The Miller’s River is in the background.
Fred Salvucci at Tower A
Fred Salvucci at Tower A in 1990 with new CANA ramps
under construction. The new bridge now runs through the
center of this shot – inches from Tower A.
Hugo, Liz & Fred
Liz Epstein at North Point (1990) with
Hugo Salemme and Fred Salvucci
High Bridge (I-93)
View from below of the High Bridge – 1990
View toward North Station
View toward North Station from road – 1990
View toward North Station
View toward North Station from RR tracks – 1990
Charles River RR bridges - 1925
Charles River RR bridges – 1925 aerial photograph
View from Charlestown toward North Point
View from Charlestown toward North Point at opening of bridge – July 13, 2012

July 14, 2012

Looking Back at the New Charles River Basin

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,East Cambridge,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:54 pm

North Bank Bridge

July 13, 2012 – The new North Bank Bridge for cyclists and pedestrians connecting North Point Park in East Cambridge to Paul Revere Park in Charlestown at the Charles River opened on Friday, July 13, 2012. This bridge went through many different designs before it was finally constructed. It’s a dream come true for all the people who have followed this evolving story over the last few decades, and the story is not yet done. More connections will follow over the next few years. Shown below are some recent images (2012), two images taken during the walk over the Zakim Bridge prior to its opening, several images of the groundbreaking for North Point Park (June 2002), and a set of images taken in April 2002 of this area. New photos of the area will be posted soon, but it’s always good to look back at what used to be. – Robert Winters

North Bank Bridge before opening
North Bank Bridge before opening
North Bank Bridge
North Bank Bridge (from invitation)
Zakim Bridge
Zakim Bridge
Zakim Bridge
Zakim Bridge
North Point Park plan
Plan for North Point Park showing proposed pedestrian bridges
Groundbreaking - June 2, 2003
Groundbreaking for North Point Park (June 13, 2002)

New temporary ramps for I-93

Threading the new temporary CANA ramps

View across the site of the future North Point Park

The old duckboat ramp at collapsed seawall

View from Boston side of RR bridge toward future park
with temporary loop ramps in background

View from north bank looking toward Boston Sand & Gravel

View toward Zakim Bridge from under temporary ramps

View of Boston Sand & Gravel from across RR tracks

View of old Charles River lock from North Point

View of Tower A and RR bridge from North Point with temporary
ramp over Tower A at left, new bridge and Zakim bridge
under construction in background

View from North Point toward Boston just upstream of RR bridge

Millers River seen from under new Zakim Bridge

View from under new Zakim Bridge (old I-93 at left)

View from between the old and the new I-93

Zakim Bridge during construction

View from under old I-93 bridge

View from downstream of old I-93 bridge

The magnificently decrepit old I-93 bridge

Looking through the old toward the new

Zakim Bridge under construction

View of old I-93 bridge looking upstream from Boston side

RR bridge viewed from downstream on the Boston side

View from Boston toward Charletown of old I-93 bridge
after removal of ramps over City Square, Charletown

View upstream from locks on new Charles River Dam

View across site of North Point Park showing duckboat,
old warehouses, new and old bridges (April 2002)

June 21, 2012

Help Shape the Future of Central Square

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 9:07 pm

HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF CENTRAL SQUARE

The Central Square Advisory Committee: 2011/2012 and the City of Cambridge invite you to help plan for the future of Central Square. Learn about the planning process to date and the vision emerging from Advisory Committee discussions informed by the two public meetings held in June 2011 and April 2012.
Please join the discussion – your voice is essential to the success of Central Square!

OPEN HOUSE CHARRETTES:  Hear about the Committee’s work and share your thoughts and priorities for the area.
Light refreshments will be served.  Please join us at any of the venues.

Mid-Cambridge
Thurs, July 12, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Cambridge Public Library (Main Branch) Community Room      
449 Broadway
Cambridgeport
Mon, July 16, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Morse School – Cafeteria
40 Granite Street
Area Four
Wed, July 18, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Area Four Youth Center
243 Harvard Street
Riverside
Thurs, July 19, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Cambridge Senior Center
806 Mass Avenue

MONDAYS IN THE SQUARE: Staff will be available to hear from you and to discuss the project.
Light refreshments will be served. Please stop by at your convenience.

Jill Brown-Rhone Park
Mon, July 9 & 23, Aug 6 & 20, 2012, 5:30–7:30pm     
Lafayette Square, Main St. & Mass Ave.
Carl Barron Plaza
Mon, July 16 & 30, Aug 13 & 27, 2012, 5:30–7:30pm
Intersection of Mass Ave. & River St.

Please spread the word to others who might be interested.
All ages are welcome and we encourage you to bring a neighbor or a friend.

For more information or to become involved, please contact Elaine Thorne at ethorne@cambridgema.gov (617-349-4648) or Iram Farooq at ifarooq@cambridgema.gov (617-349-4606).
Visit the K2C2 website at www.cambridgema.gov/k2c2.

Before
Lafayette Square (2002)
After
Lafayette Square (2009)

June 14, 2012

Comments on current Forest City zoning petition – by Bob Simha

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:48 pm

Comments on current Forest City zoning petition

written by Bob Simha, June 11, 2012

The Cambridge Planning Board
City Hall Annex
344 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear Members of the Planning Board,

I would like to submit objections to the rezoning proposal submitted by Forest City Enterprises et al for a portion of the block between Landsdowne Street, Green Street, Massachusetts Avenue and Blanche Street. I would also like to add an objection to the elimination of and use of the existing green space adjacent to the Fire House as a site for a 14 story apartment house.

The objections I share with you are based on my long association with the University Park project including a central role the in the development of the original design guidelines for the University Park project prior to Forest City’s selection, a continuing role its development after their selection and a continuing interest in ensuring that the project will in all its elements – physical, social and economic – enhance the quality of life in Cambridge and in particular the vital connection between the neighborhoods that make up Central Square, University Park and the MIT community.

From the outset, the design guidelines that MIT published for the University Park project and that were subsequently enshrined in the special district zoning were clear about holding an 80 to 85 foot height limit along Massachusetts Avenue. The current proposals violate this very important principal proposing a building almost twice that height. The impact of such a building would undermine not only the relationship with adjacent buildings but will certainly have a negative effect on the more respectful scale of the new Novartis Buildings across the street. The Planning Board should not permit this principal to be compromised.

From the outset, all of the planning for University Park anticipated a generous and green opening from Massachusetts Ave into the center of the University Park project welcoming the public as well as tenant populations into the interior of the project. The original plan called for a market building just beyond this entry portal which would have helped to anchor and revive retail offerings in Central Square. One has to wonder how much more congenial the area would have been if Forest City had pressed forward to develop the market building instead of filling the space with a visually unsettling apartment house that offers little in the way of the ground floor space for new retail activity.

To now exacerbate that mistake by filling in this portal area next to the Fire house with a 14 story tower apartment house made up of very small market rate rental units is to add insult to injury. The elimination of one of the painfully few usable open spaces in University Park should not be tolerated. The shadow studies produced by Forest City’s architects only demonstrates how during much of the year the plaza-apron area between the proposed tower and Mass. Ave. would be in shadow for most of the year.

And, more seriously, it would negatively impact the major investment in one of the few new parks in this part of the city. Casting its shadow over Jill Brown-Rhone Park it would be a constant reminder of the callous response Forest City has presented to the objections of its first proposal, namely to consider adding to the housing resources of the area. To both take away an existing dedicated open space and to diminish another would bring new meaning to corporate hubris.

As MIT’s Director of Planning during the period of the evolution of the planning and through much of the development period for University Park we had always planned that the block between Landsdowne and Blanche Street would ultimately be developed as a useful and attractive adjunct to the University Park. As one of the major land owners in this block we knew that it would be in MIT, Forest City and the abutting Cambridge neighborhoods’ interests to develop this part of Mass Ave. with activities that would add new retail services, additional housing and activities that would animate the area and make more safe this dead zone between MIT and Central Square. The expectation was that, notwithstanding the impediments of multiple ownerships it would be possible to come to terms with other owners, and redevelop the entire block as a multipurpose building. The argument that was put forward, at one of the recent presentations made by Forest City that it had not been able to accomplish this goal, only suggests that they did not work hard enough. MIT has planned for many years to relocate the Random House dormitory that occupies a major part of the block in question. The other 4 owners should, with sufficient creativity, be accommodated elsewhere. When the University Park project hung in the balance because MIT needed to resolve the traffic plan the City required, but was held up by the California Paint Company, creative efforts were made to relocate California Paint so that the overall project could go forward. One can only assume that what was done before, can be done again. The advantage to the city of a single redevelopment instead of two or three must be apparent. A more unified multipurpose development that responds to both economic and social goals would be possible. In addition, the increase in value that the current proposal would create would only tend to exacerbate the expectations of current landowners for even a greater return and, thereby, make the next developer ask for even more density and more height.

The development of this site for residential and retail purposes would be a major benefit to the community and based on the success of Forest City’s market rate housing it would generate a reliable and steady revenue stream for both the developer and the City. A quick look at the 203 units Forest City built at 100 Landsdowne Street demonstrates this point vividly. It carries an assessed value of $53,800,000 and is taxed at commercial rates. A comparable development on Mass. Ave. for 300 units plus retail services could add $75 million in value. Something to think about. Finally, this proposal appears to have ignored both the Red Commission’s recommendations for Central Square and appears to ignore the forthcoming results of the Central Square study. For these reasons, as well as those mentioned above, I would respectfully submit that the Planning Board reject this zoning petition.

O. R. Simha
Six Blanchard Road
Cambridge, MA 02138

Note: The zoning petition was amended by the City Council at its June 11 meeting to exclude all parts relating to the residential tower that had been proposed to be built adjacent to the firehouse. The petition, as amended, will be before the Planning Board on June 19.

See also:
Some observations for consideration regarding the Forest City proposal (May 14, 2012)

May 14, 2012

Some observations for consideration regarding the Forest City proposal

Filed under: Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:35 pm

Some observations for consideration regarding the Forest City proposal
to extend the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District

written by Bob Simha, May 14, 2012

The rezoning proposed by Forest City for property owned by MIT and Zevart M. Hollisian, trustee of the Garabed Hollisiian Trust raises a number of issues:

The Forest City proposal would build on a little over one half of the "All Asia" block (50,000 sq. ft.). A 221,000 square foot laboratory building of which 13,000 square feet on the ground floor would be for 3-5 retail stores. The building would be 165 feet in height, almost twice the height of the adjacent Novartis (former Necco Building). It would leave undeveloped the remaining half of the block which is occupied by an MIT dormitory, a gas station, a small luncheonette, a one story fabrication shop and a small apartment house. Forest City has stated that it could not secure agreements from the remaining landowners in order to propose the redevelopment of the entire block.

The development of only a portion of the all Asia Block at a new density and height would result in establishing new and higher values for the remaining diverse properties, lowering the possibility that the remainder of the block would be developed in the near future and would run the risk of requests for even higher densities in the future when some developer, most likely MITIMCO, succeeds in assembling the remaining parcels that it does not own in the block.

The proposal also suggests that the construction of a 145 foot high, 14 story, 130 unit rental housing tower would respond to community demands for more housing in Central Square and is in some way a quid pro quo for the ability to build additional commercial space on Mass. Avenue. This proposal eliminates one of three open spaces in the University Park project and claims that the introduction of a smaller landscaped entry way at Mass. Ave. would suffice to balance the loss of existing open space.

There were no community benefits presented by Forest City/MIT in their proposal. All of the developments proposed are revenue generators for Forest City and their development partners. The community is entitled to demand compensation for this additional private development.

Some thoughts for consideration:

The project exceeds the height of all the adjacent buildings most prominently the Novartis/Necco building and even with set backs will create and overwhelming presence on Mass. Avenue when combined with the new Novartis Building being built on land leased from MIT on the east side of Mass. Ave. The character of Mass. Ave. will become quite overbearing. The height of the building should not exceed the Necco Building and should adhere to the current restriction of 80 feet. The current design shows a lobby/corridor through the building connecting Mass. Ave. and Green Street. The developer should be encouraged to develop a ground floor plan that allows for a gallery/arcade of shops that line a passage between these streets thereby offering more smaller retail opportunities to smaller merchants and at the same time encourage more people to use this path to get to the food market and the existing garage. This may generate more revenue for the developer and reduce the amount of dead common area in the evening.

The treatment of Blanche Street as the site for loading docks for this new development will mean that both sides of Blanche will be dominated by large loading docks and be relatively inhospitable to pedestrians…as it is now.

The construction of both the Novartis and the proposed Forest City project would add almost 3/4 of a million square feet to an area whose transportation infrastructure capacity is already overtaxed.

The height of the proposed residential building was not placed in the context of Central Square. We were not told how the height of this building (14 stories) compares to the Cambridge housing authority building between Green and Franklin Street. No shadow studies were presented. The proposal did not point out the important visual impact that this tower building would have on creating an identifying image for Central Square. Visible from both the Mass. Avenue and the Main Street entrances to the city, the quality of the architecture for this building, if it goes forward, should require a much higher standard of design and the developer should be encouraged to retain design services of the same level of quality that Novartis used in the design of its nearby building.

The housing is presented as a response to the community expression of housing needs and as a pseudo gift. One of the goals for more housing in both the Red Ribbon and Goody/Clancy Central Square report was to provide housing that would be accessible to people who work in the Central Square area and any new housing should offer more affordable ownership opportunities. This proposal appears to be aimed at the high rent market that Forest City serves at their developments at Sidney and Landsdowne Street.

The community may prefer to have more ownership rather than rental housing to help introduce more people with a longer term interest in the square. Coop or condo housing on leased land is a very common practice in many American cities and we have such a project on Pleasant Street in Cambridge developed by Harvard University and occupied by both University and non university people. This type of development does not carry land cost in the unit sales and results in lower prices for housing units.

In addition, there are some outstanding needs in the adjacent neighborhoods that could be satisfied in exchange for any additional development potential that is awarded. For example ,the additional FAR they have requested might be dependent on Forest City and MIT completing the assembly of land on Pacific Street Park between Brookline and Sidney in order to complete the Pacific Street park . If the petitioners assemble and donate that land to complete the park the city could permit them to transfer the development rights to a new building ..This is how the existing park was developed…MIT contributed the land to the park in exchange for the transfer of development rights which were used in the development of the Grad Housing on Pacific and Sidney Streets…The same principal could be applied to the Forest City proposal.

Another point that should be raised concerns the displacement of people now using the park space that is proposed for the new housing project. Where will they go? What will be the impact on other parts of Lafayette and Central Square? More people, more need for active and passive open space. – Bob Simha

See also:
Comments on current Forest City zoning petition – by Bob Simha (June 11, 2012)

September 15, 2011

Concord Avenue, Under Construction

I just rode Concord Avenue last Sunday to see what was happening there.

I had thought that the construction project would have been completed by now, but it isn’t.

The image below is of the east end of the section under construction. I find a bit of irony here in that the “Bikes May Use Full Lane” sign is placed at the start of a project which intends to get bicycles off the road, and also it is nonstandard — diamond-shaped like a warning sign which is supposed to be yellow, but white like a regulatory sign, which is supposed to be rectangular (as with speed-limit and no parking signs). The message is a regulatory message: it is law.

Looking west at the east end of the Concord Avenue section under construction

Looking west at the east end of the Concord Avenue section under construction

Construction barrels divide the narrowed roadway into two lanes, rather than the three planned for when construction is complete. As the westbound bikeway is incomplete, I rode west on the roadway. Motorists still were able to overtake me without leaving their lane, as they were when the roadway was wider, with three travel lanes and a bike lane on either side. I was passed by a number of cars, no problem. I had one conflict with a driver who moved out of a side street into my path. Such conflicts will be much more common when bicyclists are riding in sidewalk space.

The road surface was very bumpy because the street has not yet been repaved. The effort is going into construction of the bicycle sidepaths at this time.

I shot video of my rides. It’s HD video and you will want to view it full screen to get all the details. This is the link to the video of my westbound ride. And here is my eastbound ride.

One other thing I hadn’t expected is that the south-side (eastbound) path was almost completely empty, except for me, though it was nearly finished, and unobstructed — on a warm, sunny Sunday afternoon when there was heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic in Fresh Pond Park and on the Minuteman path.

I can say that if much traffic does appear on the south-side path, the situation will be very confused. There is no buffer between the 5′ wide bikeway (closer to the curb) and the wider walkway away from the curb. There was supposed to be a 2-foot-wide buffer, as I recall. Also, the concrete pavement of the pedestrian section, farther from the curb, is smoother. The bumpier asphalt pavement adjacent to the curb is supposed to be for eastbound bicyclists, in defiance of AASHTO guidelines, which require a 5′ spacing or a barrier, and also in defiance of normal path and road rules, which require riding on the right side. The City’s scheme would have eastbound bicyclists riding on the left side of the combined bikeway and walkway. Meanwhile, there also will be westbound bicyclists using this path to avoid the much worse path on the other side of the street, and probably keeping to the right as is usual.

As the path is behind a high curb, bicyclists who want to cross Concord Avenue will have to wait at the crosswalks rather than to merge into the roadway. At the few crosswalks, there is no waiting area (for example, at 1:24 in the eastbound video). Because the bikeway is between the walkway and the street, bicyclists and pedestrians who are waiting to cross the street will block the bikeway, and other bicyclists will have to divert onto the walkway.

As the concrete pavers of the pedestrian section and the asphalt of the bicycle section age and settle, a step could develop between them, just as on the parts of the Charles River paths, widened with asphalt next to the old stone retaining wall along the riverfront. Many bicyclists have gone down as a result.

Many aspects of the Cambridge bicycle program can be described as ideologically driven, and defying national and state design standards. Placing a longitudinal seam along a bikeway, and directing traffic to keep left, are merely incompetent.

Other than what I have described in this post, the project looks as though it will turn out as I expected, with the foreseeable problems I’ve already described in my earlier post; the right hook and left cross conflicts, inability to cross to the south side at most locations without dismounting in the street to lift the bicycle over a curb; resulting wrong-way riding on the north side, etc.

The party line about the Concord Avenue project, which I have in writing from two City employees (here and here) and verbally from a member of the Cambridge Bicycle Committee, is that “bicyclists will be riding in exactly the same place as they are now.” This statement turns a blind eye to the encouragement of wrong-way riding, and the keep right/keep left confusion. It ignores bicyclists’ crossing and turning maneuvers, and motorists’ being trapped by the curbs and forced to turn across the path of bicyclists; it denies that motorists block sidepaths so they can see approaching traffic in the street. Saying that “bicyclists will be riding in exactly the same place as they are now” is like saying that a bird in a cage, hanging in a tree, is in exactly in the same place as a bird sitting in that tree and free to fly off.

What really burns me up is that the City employees designing bicycle facilities appear to have no concept of how bicyclists actually are going to use them, or of the potential hazards. It’s all about “build it and they will come” and that means, build just anything they think will attract novice cyclists and children, and to hell with design standards and safety research. I see shoddy and incompetent mimicry of European designs, and astonishing hubris. So far, the Concord Avenue bikeway is half built with one side completely open, and very few bicyclists have come, except for me, and I was there on a discovery tour.

Save

Save

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 PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress