On The Record

Home | Opinion | Letters > Why this candidate for Cambridge City Council won’t sign the bike lane pledge
published Cambridge Day Monday, July 24, 2023

It is election season, and Cambridge Bicycle Safety will soon be asking City Council candidates to sign its 2023 pledge to continue uninterrupted installation of separated bike lanes, especially along Massachusetts Avenue. It will come as no surprise to many that I will not be signing.

Separated bike lanes are only one part the city’s complex transportation discussion, which should not be viewed as a stand-alone issue. To do so ignores Cambridge’s many other vital transportation needs, including public safety, delivery access, curb accessibility for seniors and the mobility-impaired, as well as resident parking, parking for businesses, mass transit and safe pedestrian access. The unglamorous needs of the city itself for snow removal, trash removal, street repairs and paving and underground utility work all need to be accomplished on the same streets.

If you have driven in Cambridge recently, you know we have a transportation problem, and short-term it is not solvable by more people cycling. Some people cannot ride a bike. Many people have already reduced vehicle trips. Even cyclists use their cars occasionally. Reliable bus service would help reduce congestion, and without it people will still resort to driving.

Somehow, we lost track of the fact that well-functioning streets are an important feature of a well-functioning city. With the elimination of parking and travel lanes for installation of separated bike and bus lanes, congestion has increased. The goal of reducing greenhouse gases by promoting more cycling activity has instead increased the number of idling vehicles and lengthened travel times. Motorists take alternate routes through residential neighborhoods to avoid clogged traffic on major thoroughfares. It is unclear if the streets are any safer for cyclists or anyone else. On the redesigned Cambridge Street in Inman Square, buses and delivery vehicles can’t pull over, and stop in the middle of the travel lane – backing up traffic almost to Prospect Street. Fire vehicles and ambulances are having a tough time getting through traffic. These are the byproducts of a City Council approach to policy that focused on one issue to the exclusion of other important transportation needs.

As you may know, for the past several years, I, along with many others from Cambridge Streets for All and Save Mass Ave, have been raising these issues and realities, only to be rebuffed by a majority of the City Council. The council’s refusal to have a meaningful discussion about modifications to the Cycling Safety Ordinance led Cambridge Streets for All and a group of plaintiffs to sue the city. Residents were denied due process by the city to have a formal hearing with the Traffic Board over street changes created by separated bike lanes. Lack of upfront impact assessments, community input and flexibility of design and timetable were included. The goal of that lawsuit was not to remove all separated bike lanes, but rather to cause the City Council to convene a belated community discussion, to show flexibility in implementation and design based on location and to develop mitigation approaches. This never happened.

We need clear-headed thinking about our city streets. I believe we need to do a full assessment of the bike lane installations and undertake a thoughtful, comprehensive transportation planning process, especially for Massachusetts Avenue. Robust data collection and analysis of street activity and use, input from stakeholders and engineering and design assistance that consider the multiple uses and users of our streets should be part of the process.

Separated bike lanes have fueled deep division within Cambridge. We can start to mend our civic relationships by hitting the pause button on further installations and undertaking a process that will focus on the goals of safe and efficiently functioning streets. And that is why I will not sign the CBS pledge.

Joan Pickett
Candidate for Cambridge City Council

Heavier, faster e-bikes worry me
High speeds, more weight are recipe for more accidents
published in Commonwealth Magazine Sept 10, 2022

AS A PEDESTRIAN, I am worried city streets will get more dangerous now that faster, heavier electric bicycles or e-bikes have been officially recognized by state officials. This year’s state infrastructure bill, signed by Gov. Charlie Baker in August, designates two classes of e-bikes that can travel up to 20 mph and puts them in the same category as conventional bikes. It makes no determination about the status of a third class of e-bike that can travel up to 28 miles per hour. It also gives regulatory authority over e-bikes to individual cities and towns.

Before this recent legislation, e-bikes were in a gray area between conventional bikes and mopeds. E-bikes look like conventional bicycles, but an electric motor gives the rider a boost while pedaling or even powers the bike all on its own.

An average pedal bike cyclist on flat terrain travels at about 10 to 14 miles per hour. Many e-bikes can easily reach speeds up to or even over 20 mph. This is a significant and dangerous difference in speed in all circumstances. Further, while the average conventional bike weighs less than 20 pounds, the presence of a motor and battery means e-bikes can weigh in anywhere from 40- 80 pounds.

Heavier bikes moving faster means e-bikes pose an increased injury risk to pedestrians and other cyclists in collisions.

Reuters reported e-bike injuries were more than three times as likely to involve a collision with a pedestrian than either a scooter or conventional bike based on research reported in the journal Injury Prevention.

A spate of injuries involving electric Citibikes in New York City, prompted Lyft, the parent company of Citibikes, to temporarily pull all of the approximately 1,000 electric bicycles from the city’s streets amid safety concerns about the brakes. According to New York City Department of Transportation data, e-bike fatalities jumped from just six in 2019 to 20 in 2020. Even in the Netherlands, a country with a decades-long cycling culture, a Dutch study found that e-bike riders were 1.6 times more likely than an ordinary bicyclist to end up in the emergency room.

But this increase in injuries does not need to be everyone’s experience. The legislation gives cities control over regulating the operation of e-bikes—including speed limits and where they can be ridden. Right now, in the absence of explicit city regulations, e-bikes can travel at any speed and anywhere a conventional bike can be operated (except sidewalks). The new legislation will boost the already increasing number of e-bikes on city streets. Bikeshare systems will include e-bikes in their rental fleets.

Local governments should immediately begin a public process to explore new rules focused on e-bike operation to ensure the streets are safe and accessible for all. Cities should also modify their data collection approach so that e-bike crashes and accidents are tracked separately from conventional bike incidents to ensure cities have appropriate data to help make future decisions.

E-bikes, along with e-scooters, Onewheels, and other electric personal mobility devices are here to stay. Cities need to figure out how to help make their operation as safe and efficient as possible for everyone.

Joan Pickett is a resident of Cambridge and a member of Cambridge Streets for All.

From: Joan Pickett <jpickett7@yahoo.com>
To: citymanager@cambridgema.gov <citymanager@cambridgema.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cambridgema.gov>; cityclerk@cambridgema.gov <cityclerk@cambridgema.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 at 04:17:39 PM EST
Subject: CMA Item #12 – Garden Street Report

Dear City Manager and City Council,

At the beginning of the Garden Street report, TPT points out that the CSO is a mandate. As I read it, that section came across almost as an excuse or a rationalization for what has happened in the Garden Street project. And in part that is true.

From the start of the Garden St community meetings, residents were waving red flags about the potential for traffic flow backups, concerns about side street impacts, the routing of the Harvard Shuttle and dearth of parking in the area. Yet TPT pushed forward. The reasonable thing to do would have been to hit the pause button to do a deeper dive into the issues residents were raising before implementation started. But that did not happen and now the issues are being dealt with after the fact.

TPT clearly could have done a better job in understanding the traffic flow in the area and resolved the problems before they happened. But the real problem goes back to how the CSO Ordinance is written and to the Council who voted in favor of it. The Ordinance is pushing TPT to` just get it done’ vs `let’s get it done right’. The Ordinance is too prospective and inflexible leaving little room for TPT to adjust for location, location specific issues and timing. In a perfect world, the City Council would acknowledge the flaws in the Ordinance and amend it to allow for more flexibility.

Until them, TPT is left cleaning up a poorly implemented project and residents are suffering in the meantime. The City Council should step up to amend the Ordinance so this situation does not happen again.

Joan Pickett
59 Ellery St.
Cambridge

Joan Pickett
From: jpickett7@yahoo.com
To: City Council,citymanager@cambridgema.gov,
cityclerk@cambridgema.gov

Sun, Jun 11 at 12:07 PM

Dear City Council,

The Council has before it another divisive issue. It also has before it an opportunity to bring the city together on an important issue. Which will the council choose? The politically expedient or the more difficult task of a thoughtful community discussion similar to the process that led to the current AHO? Unfortunately, I think most on the council will choose political expediency with the fall election on our door step.

The amendments before the council were sprung on everyone including the council with some members actually surprised. The current AHO is working with about 1500 new units complete or in the works according to CDD’s report to the Council. The developers acknowledge the proposed AHO amendments will not necessarily yield significantly more housing perhaps only a handful over the next several years. There are no potential projects being stalled by the current AHO (except one). So, why rush something to a vote? Because it will look good on campaign literature —- Look what I did, I stand for affordable housing —- when in reality it will change little.

The council had an opportunity to make a bold statement about the priority of affordable housing during the budget discussions and ask the CM to direct significantly more funds to affordable housing. It did not.

The funding issue as well as the proposed AHO amendments (which will have little impact on the AHO picture) calls out to me that this current council lacks the political will and ability to take on the tough work of governing. If this passes, you can check the box for new AHO regulations, declare victory and move on. Next year, if you are re-elected, you will still be wringing your hands saying we are not doing enough for affordable housing, and it will be true because you failed to look more deeply at the issues.You failed to engage the many persons in our community with expertise and experience in this issue.

Unfortunately, this is not issue the only issue where the council has failed to engage and listen to the majority of residents and taxpayers, to engage experts and ask probing questions, and to be thoughtful about impacts on the entire city. Something needs to change in how the city is being governed and hopefully the upcoming election will yield the change the city needs.

Joan Pickett
59 Ellery St.-

— Forwarded Message —–
From: Joan Pickett <jpickett7@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <citycouncil@cambridgema.gov>; cityclerk@cambridgema.gov <cityclerk@cambridgema.gov>; citymanager@cambridgema.gov <citymanager@cambridgema.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:49:30 AM EDT
Subject: Support BEUDO Amendment

Dear City Councillors,

Please support the amendment to exempt large apartment buildings and to allow houses of worship and hospitals extra special consideration as well as historic buildings. It is common sense to make these changes now before passing the Ordinance. Large apartment building owners will pass along the cost of retrofitting their buildings to tenants further exasperating our housing challenges. Religious organizations are already facing significant financial challenges. Why should the city add to them with the full knowledge now they will be unable to afford retrofitting their buildings?

The goals of BEUDO are laudable but please consider impacts on those that are smaller contributors to the problem and the spill over impacts which run counter to other city goals. Make changes to the Ordinance now before it passes.

Sincerely,

Joan Pickett
59 Ellery St

To: City Council, cityclerk@cambridgema.gov
Cc: citymanager@cambridgema.gov

Mon, Sep 11 at 6:00 PM

Dear City Councillors,
I’m speaking in support of Policy Order 8 asking for analysis of different building heights along AHO defined corridors and in opposition to the current draft amendments to the Historical Building and Landmarks Ordinance also referred to NCD ordinance.

These two seemingly disparate items are very much linked in an attempt to remove as many barriers to development as possible whether it is for affordable housing or redevelopment of existing buildings into luxury dwellings. The potential outcome if both are approved as drafted is for new or renovated buildings to be very much out of character with neighboring buildings or to have the historic and architectural value and significance of a location or structure to be permanently or materially impacted.

Change is necessary to meet our housing goals. It keeps our community’s housing stock interesting and adds vibrancy to our neighborhoods.

I urge the council to carefully consider the impact as you vote on both these ordinances and hope you can come to the conclusion it is worth developing housing within the context of a neighborhoods’ character and livability, and for preserving the role of neighborhood conservation districts, neighborhoods and neighbors to have meaningful input into changes that directly impact them.

Thank you.

Joan Pickett
59 Ellery St
City Council Candidate

CMA #6 CSO Progress report is insufficient
Yahoo/Sent

Joan Pickett <jpickett7@yahoo.com>
To:City Council
Cc:cityclerk@cambridgema.gov,citymanager@cambridgema.gov
Sat, May 20 at 4:57 PM
Dear City Council,

The third annual CSO progress report is exactly what TPT is required to do under the Ordinance, no more or less. But residents and the council should demand more than just mileage completed and planned.

The council and residents need more accountability on the CSO, real information that allows for informed decision making. Please ask the city staff to do a robust multidimensional CSO evaluation to include:

Safety data for all street users in sections where separated bike lanes have been installed,

Comprehensive, verifiable ridership statistics before and after installations,

Economic impact assessment on businesses,

An assessment of neighborhood impacts caused by redirected traffic, and

Impact on seniors and the disabled who do not have access to the curb and have difficulty getting services with no parking.

To continue without meaningful project evaluation is a very bad practice especially as the investments being sought are increasing and our streets will be in a state of chaos for a very long time. Is the investment and disruption worth it? An evaluation will answer those questions.

Joan Pickett
59 Ellery St.