Council Updates, Stand Up Harvard! Rally, Garden Street, and More

Finance Committee Schedule Updates
Big Programs and Projects: Wednesday April 16, 3:00pm-5:00pm. (meeting materials, when available). The Finance Committee will have a public meeting to review and discuss capital and large-scale programs and projects currently underway and in the funding plan, and potential future programming and projects that would need to be planned and incorporated into medium- and long-term capital and operating budgets.

Health and Environment Committee Schedule Updates
Protecting Registered Solar Energy Systems: Monday, April 14, 2025, 2:00pm-4:00pm (meeting materials, when available). This meeting is in response to a policy order I filed in January (POR 2025 #7), which asks City staff to consider ways in which we can encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems. With new development popping up in neighborhoods and new zoning in effect, it is essential that we continue to promote investment in renewable energy sources, but equally as important to work to protect residents who have already made that important investment in renewable energy. In this meeting we will consider zoning options to protect solar access for residents with existing solar energy systems. I have heard from a number of residents in recent weeks who are interested in this topic, and I encourage you to attend this meeting and stay engaged in the process as we look to protect solar access for residents.

Garden Street Vote
Why yes to two way Garden Street?

Three years in, the Garden Street redesign continues to be contentious. How did we get here? During the public process for the project in 2022, several options were considered and in order to keep some parking, a decision was made for one-way car traffic for several blocks. This decision to prioritize parking and make a two-way street one way has not been made for any other street where recent CSO bike lane projects have been completed. Following the change, despite measures taken to alleviate adverse effects, concerns about cut through traffic, speeding, and congestion remain. Thus, following a policy order from December, this week the City Council considered whether to restore two-way traffic. After careful consideration, I voted for what I believe is best for the city: to return Garden Street to two way car travel while keeping two-way bike lanes. I want to provide some context for my vote to return Garden Street to two-way car traffic and respond to some concerns expressed.

Safety: Lots of people assert that the voted configuration (option 4) is not as safe. That assertion lacks evidence. Bi-directional bike lanes are part of our bike lane toolkits and are safe, as confirmed publicly by the City Manager and Transportation staff. Only options deemed safe were presented and considered. In fact it was one of the options originally proposed by city staff. We have bi-directional bike lanes in other areas of the city including a new one on Huron Avenue. There are pros and cons to different bike lane layouts based on specific locations. A safety advantage to bi-directional lanes is that cyclists of different speeds can safely pass each other without leaving the lane and going into the roadway. And DPW equipment can more easily clear the lanes. Since safety is obviously important, I asked the city for any data on the safety of bi-directional lanes. Since lanes on Brattle Street in the heart of Harvard Square with tons of traffic of all kinds were installed in 2017, we have robust experience. The answer was that the city didn’t have the comprehensive data I sought, but the data the city did have which was sent to me showed excellent safety after the installation of the bi-directional lanes on Brattle for pedestrians and cyclists. So our own evidence in Cambridge shows bidirectional lanes are safe. I did hear some city staff say the other option was safer, but I had asked for data, and there was no data presented. Yes, navigating bi-directional lanes can be tricky and drivers and all users will have to build familiarity with the design. However, our own experiential data showed that safety with bidirectional lanes was not compromised. If there is other data, I am happy to review it. The only study I found directly studying two way and one way separated bike lanes did not find any evidence of worse safety outcomes. Maybe there are other studies, but I hope we can all rest assured the new configuration will be safe.

Community process: There was no consensus when the one way plan was decided. That is revisionist history, as anyone who went to any community meeting on Garden Street knows. Then and now the neighborhood is split. Those going only by the number of people speaking would conclude greater support for the one way status quo. I don’t vote based only on the most organized groups’ efforts. Based on emails, public comment, and in talking with many people in the area, I judge that there is more support in the broad area for a return to two-way car traffic than keeping it one way. To suggest I am voting out of a deference to the wealthy people who live nearby is tone deaf to the less than wealthy people in the neighborhood who were vocal, feel left out of discussions, and who matter. People of all backgrounds were advocating for both options. This decision was not about ignoring a coalition of people on one side or the other, it was about navigating an issue that clearly split the city – and voting for a compromise that maintained safe bike lanes in both directions as an essential priority.

Travel of students: Many people wrote about how important safety is for CRLS students headed to Danehy or Russell Field. I agree. Their route will be as safe, with separated two-way bike lanes. Plus, visibility will be better, instead of bikes being hidden by parked cars. The most challenging part of that ride is after the Garden Street bike lanes stop. I believe we should extend the bike lanes all the way to Danehy, along Sherman Street or Garden Street and I wish the hundreds had been advocating for that, which would be a true safety improvement for the area.

Congestion: This change will not magically disappear congestion. And yes, Garden Street will have more cars, as in the past. However, in exchange, other streets will have fewer cars. Traffic flow will be smoother in the area and therefore improved. There will be challenges to ensure optimal traffic flow, but the sense that congestion will be worse are based on projections. We don’t know. And let’s not forget that despite the best efforts of the traffic department beforehand, clearly the adverse impact of one way on Garden Street was underestimated, which led to changes made after installation: signals were changed, no left turns put on two streets, etc. And still back ups occur in the afternoon on surrounding streets, leading to idling, pollution, and lost time. Those flawed projections showed that despite best efforts, our projections are not perfect. Observing history and on the ground reality led me to believe this solution will be better overall. I do hope that we will use all tools we can to address concerns about congestion and availability for deliveries.

Context: This change does not make the city more car friendly or incentivize car travel. Rather, it affirms that on-street parking is not the only or the primary use of our public way. In the fall, before signing onto the December policy order asking the City to consider two-way options, I reviewed available information, and talked to community members, city staff, and advocacy groups on the idea of two-way car and bicycle travel. The tradeoff would clearly be less parking on Garden Street, and would likely mean a bi-directional bike lane instead of lanes on both sides. Bicycle advocates indicated that as long as this change wouldn’t result in the removal of bike lanes, that it seemed there was no one right answer, since the tradeoff did not eliminate bike lanes. Unfortunately this issue has, perhaps predictably, ended with an organized effort, with some lack of clarity on the impacts on cyclists. Some cyclists I spoke with wrongly assumed that bike lanes would be taken away.

Summary: Quick build bike lanes have been a key strategy of the CSO, not only because of the cost savings and the speed in which implementation can occur, but also because it allows for additional changes if appropriate. We need to be willing to revisit projects and make adjustments at times. Garden Street, with two-way car traffic, will not be the same as it was five years ago since bike lanes remain. It will have more cars than now, and should also have slower speeds due to narrow lanes. The road will be safe for cyclists and pedestrians and there will be two-way bicycle travel in dedicated, protected bike lanes.

If we want a full network of accessible and safe bike lanes, which I absolutely do, per POR 2024 #152, we need to be amenable to a variety of solutions. We will absolutely not get there if we don’t consider the option of bi-directional bike lanes when appropriate. Many existing roadways are too narrow to accommodate all the necessary uses otherwise. And we will not get to a comprehensive network by ignoring the very real traffic concerns in the area or by walling ourselves off to alternative street designs. I am certain this explanation of why I voted yes will not appease those who are slamming me. I can only hope they read it. I always try to be transparent about my reasoning.