
Boston needs a safe streets ordinance
Boston unfortunately is still moving backwards when it comes to safe streets, with the city pushing developers behind closed doors to drop commitments to build protected bike lanes and space for trees in favor of parking and keeping the roadway the same in a known high crash location, where a community process had resulted in plans for bike infrastructure. This is after a year and half of not only halted progress (in several cases jeopardizing and even losing already awarded funds) but also actively undermining existing infrastructure by removing protection without replacement and doing repaving projects without planned improvements. But across the river progress has continued, not without fits and starts but still far more steadily than in Boston.
One clear difference is that both Cambridge and Somerville have passed ordinances mandating progress on specific corridors (identified through a community process, existing plans, and information on crashes). Cambridge calls it the Cycling Safety Ordinance, and this ordinance, as the name suggests, only applies to cycling (although there are obviously spill over effects, remember Boston found the biggest safety benefit of installed bike lanes went to pedestrians). Somerville, coming after, broadened the approach, calling it a Street Safety ordinance, and also mandating improvements for pedestrians and transit users specifically, as well as general improvements to dangerous intersections, in addition to the bike infrastructure commitments.
Cambridge is nearing the completion of its original Cycling Safety ordinance commitments. While Somerville plugs away on several projects along and around major corridors (Elm Beacon connector, Somerville Ave, Washington Street, and Broadway all have active projects) and has successfully lobbied the state for major road diets and public realm improvements along an unnecessary urban highway (although the designs still leave something to be desired). This is despite Somerville having a massively smaller budget than Boston both total and per capita. The problem isn’t really resources (bike and ped infrastructure save and generate money anyway) it’s about commitment and political will.
Boston has already done most of the work necessary for such an ordinance. Despite the claims to the contrary by an anti-bike billionaire and his front group, Boston does actually have a bike plan already: GoBoston2030, whose recommendations and timelines the city is massively trailing (also undermining arguments the city is moving too fast on this). Boston has already identified high crash streets and intersections in its vision zero planning. Boston also has a raft of planned but never advanced bike, pedestrian, and transit projects it could move on, and that is even before you include the dozen plus impacted by the Wu-turn.
If the city council and Mayor are actually serious about their recent statements claiming to support Vision zero they will pass a similar ordinance, identifying specific projects and strategies and mandating their implementation with specific timelines. Anything less is just lip service.