From: Ruth Ryals <rryals(a)comcast.net>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:36 PM
To: PSNA <portersquare(a)googlegroups.com>
Subject: FW: Davenport St Traffic Direction Change
Mark your calendars for the PSNA meeting on the 19th on zoom.
Details to follow.
Ruth
From: "Meuse, Stephen" <smeuse(a)cambridgema.gov>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 12:03 PM
To: Ruth Ryals <rryals(a)comcast.net>
Cc: "Baxter, Patrick" <pbaxter(a)cambridgema.gov>
Subject: RE: Davenport St Traffic Direction Change
Hi Ruth,
We will make staff available on the 19th to present the change to the neighborhood and explain how the decision was made. We will hold off on making the change until after the meeting, as requested.
Thank you,
-Stephen
From: Ruth Ryals <rryals(a)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 9:40 PM
To: Meuse, Stephen <smeuse(a)cambridgema.gov>; PSNA <portersquare(a)googlegroups.com>
Cc: Gretchen Friesinger <gfriesinger(a)gmail.com>; DC Denison <dcdenison(a)mac.com>; Margaret Studier <margaretstudier(a)gmail.com>; Stever Robbins <SteverPrivate(a)SteverRobbins.com>; Jeff Quinlan <JeffQ(a)actwin.com>; Tim Bancroft <tbbancroft(a)gmail.com>; Ingrid Anderson <ingridlanderson(a)gmail.com>; Erik Ryan <Erik.ryan(a)yale.edu>; Julie Baer <juliecbaer(a)gmail.com>; kaplanma(a)bc.edu; Ramesh Govindan <rgovindan25(a)gmail.com>; Steven Nutter <steven(a)greencambridge.org>; Ruth Ryals <rryals(a)comcast.net>; Lori Ray <Loriray1(a)excite.com>
Subject: Davenport St Traffic Direction Change
Importance: High
Dear Stephen,
Below is a letter to you from John Klensin, one of our members, which describes our problem with the way the city has been handled the proposed change to Davenport St.
I have also attached the flyer that went to some of the homes in the neighborhood.
Both of these pieces are important for the rest of PSNA’s members to read in order to understand what is being proposed here.
I know there have been some conversations back and forth, all very last minute, as there has been no prior warning (before the flyer) that the city was proposing to change the direction of Davenport Street imminently.
It would be helpful if you (and others from the department) would join PSNA for a meeting where we could discuss what they have planned (before it is done) and why, and we (the neighbors and the larger group of us who use that area and would be affected by the proposed changes) could ask our questions and have time to say our piece.
So, PSNA (Porter Square Neighbors Association) would like to ask the Traffic Dept. for a (zoom) meeting on this topic, either at our next meeting (Nov 19, 7-9 pm), or at your and your colleagues’ earliest convenience, but definitely before any work is done.
Please let us know times (preferably after the workday) when you and others from the department are available to discuss this project with us. BTW, our meetings are open to anyone.
Thank you, in advance,
Ruth
Ruth Ryals
President, PSNA
rryals(a)comcast.net
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John C Klensin <john+psna(a)jck.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 3:14 PM
Subject: FWD: RE: Davenport St Traffic Direction Change
To: Margaret Studier <margaretstudier(a)gmail.com>, Gretchen Friesinger <gfriesinger(a)gmail.com>, Ruth Ryals <rryals(a)comcast.net>
I do think there are two issues here that we should probably try
to keep separate.
One is whether this change to Davenport is a
good idea and justified by traffic engineering considerations.
I don't know; maybe it is and the change would be the result if
the neighbors had asked them to do a traffic study and they had
done so carefully and professionally.
The second is how this has been managed, both in terms of community involvement
and consultation and of the quality of the study (at least the study
present in February).
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> From: John C Klensin <john+psna(a)jck.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 12:25 PM
> To: Meuse, Stephen <smeuse(a)cambridgema.gov>
> Subject: Davenport St Traffic Direction Change
>
> Dear Mr. Meuse,
>
> I received the notice of the Davenport Street direction change
> late last week. I suppose your department is going to do what
> it is going to do and that, despite some inconvenience, I will
> adjust. However, implying that this represents the consensus
> of the local community or that all concerns have been
> addressed by "concerns raised by the community" and "discussed
> during a community meeting that was held in early February" is
> misleading at best.
>
> I was at the meeting on February 5. Several concerns were
> raised then and in the subsequent few days. I gave my name
> and contact information on the attendance sheet and followed
> up after it with one of your colleagues. Among them were
> that there was strong advocacy for this change by a few
> neighbors who lived or frequently parked on Davenport but many
> questions and concerns from others who will be significantly
> affected. While I think it would be accurate to say that few
> of us expressed outright opposition, we were trying to
> understand whether the city had researched and adequately
> understood the traffic pattern and other implications of this
> change. Answers to our questions could easily have turned
> "concerned" into "opposed". To the best of my knowledge,
> there has been no follow-up by the city at all, much less
> response to those concerns and questions.
>
> Before asking that you read the rest of this rather long
> message, I want to stress that, while I would prefer that you
> not make this change (it will inconvenience me nearly every
> time I drive home), I'm not strongly opposed to it if you
> conclude after careful study of all relevant issues and likely
> effects that the tradeoffs are worth it (and you are open and
> transparent about that). My primary concern is that many
> questions were asked, at the meeting and in subsequent
> correspondence with Traffic and Parking, for which the answers
> appeared to be "we didn't know about that", "we didn't
> consider that", or just silence. I also had the strong
> impression coming out of that meeting, a meeting that was
> focused primarily on Cogswell Ave issues, that there would be
> an opportunity for further discussion about Davenport and/or
> that any change would be viewed as an experiment with a clear
> plan about reversion to the present setup if the change did
> not bring about significant improvements (not that one-way
> immediately becomes the new status quo).
>
> Things I recall being raised include:
>
> (1) Many of the neighbors who would be affected were not
> notified of the meeting. A few found out by word of mouth or
> other accident and attended anyway; others found out only
> after the meeting occurred. In particular, there is a large
> parking lot that serves residents living on Orchard and Allen
> that opens (only) onto Davenport. Many of those who use that
> lot or live adjacent to it were not notified of the meeting.
> It also potentially affects those living on Beech and on
> Orchard (at least between Beech and Davenport), few of whom
> were notified either.
>
> (2) Some of the data that were presented were incomplete or
> inaccurate. Among examples, that parking lot was not shown as
> part of the circulation pattern and one picture of a truck
> parked on the sidewalk on the shopping center side facing Elm
> was represented as something it wasn't. With regard to the
> latter, the description of the traffic and parking patterns
> associated with the unloading and parking area between Mass
> Ave and more than halfway to Orchard was inaccurate. The
> reality, not shown in any of the pictures or discussion, is
> that cars are often parked there head-in to the wall and
> perpendicular to Davenport. In addition, because of the
> narrowness of the street, the traffic, and cars parked on the
> other side, it is often far easier to pull a truck in parallel
> to Davenport and unload that way than to turn it perpendicular
> and unload closer to the relevant business (even when there is
> room). When cars are there and someone comes to unload a
> truck, that truck will be behind them and often overlapping
> the sidewalk. Trucks even sometimes try to unload between the
> dumpster enclosure and Davenport, also resulting in
> overlapping the sidewalk and extending into the street. There
> is no reason to believe any of that will change if the street
> is made one-way.
>
> (3) It was pointed out that the street could not be made
> one-way in the other direction because most trucks expecting
> to unload came in from Elm anyway (not true as evidenced by
> that picture) and, in particular, that large trucks often
> backed into the Tags loading dock which faces Mass Ave and
> that there was no way for them to turn around. Certainly that
> is true, but, from my anecdotal observations (I walk up and
> down the affected stretch of Davenport nearly every day) more
> trucks unloading for stores and loading areas closer to Mass
> Ave come in from Mass Ave, not Elm.
>
> (4) One of the reasons for congestion on Davenport involves
> trucks backing into the Star Market loading dock from Elm, a
> process that sometimes takes a long time. That results in
> congestion on Elm, frustration for drivers coming down
> Davenport toward Elm as well as from Elm trying to get onto
> Davenport, and increased through traffic on Saginaw (a private
> way that should carry substantially no through traffic). This
> change will presumably not affect the congestion problem. I
> can guess either way on what it will do to traffic on Saginaw
> (but see below).
>
> (5) Because that large parking lot that opens onto Davenport
> between Orchard and Mass Ave apparently had not been examined
> as part of the city's analysis, its impact on all of this has
> not been considered, In particular...
>
> (6) There was apparently no analysis of what this change would
> do to traffic on Beech, Orchard, or Elm. Traffic going
> northbound on Mass Ave who now use Davenport to unload behind
> the shopping center and the parking, dumpster, and unloading
> area behind Yume Wo Katare and the recently-empty stores on
> the corner; the garage under the condos in the block of
> Davenport nearest Mass Ave; and the parking lot mentioned
> above will presumably all be forced onto Beech and then onto
> Orchard or Elm to come back up Davenport. Beech already has
> traffic problems and the general assumption is that they will
> increase when the St. James Church project is completed and
> fully occupied; Orchard is narrow and congested; and, even if
> Cambridge does not consider Elm its problem, further backed up
> traffic there as trucks try to navigate backing up into the
> Star Market loading dock will do no one any good. In
> particular, if drivers already frustrated by having to go the
> long way around get backed up there and divert (or are
> diverted by some over-clever online navigation system) onto
> Saginaw, one can expect big problems.
>
> (7) At least in the short to medium term, traffic going
> southbound on Mass Ave and expecting to turn into Davenport
> will be pushed onto Somerville Ave and then either onto White
> and (presumably) across the shopping center parking lot or all
> the way to intersection between Somerville Ave and Elm (an
> almost impossible left turn for a large truck and already a
> dangerous intersection). One could also imagine various
> options involving, e.g., Beacon and Park Streets, but that is
> rather far out of the way.
>
> (8) There is also the possibility that, if traffic flow on
> Davenport toward Mass Ave becomes smoother (and faster), that,
> given the frequent congestion on Beech, drivers coming down
> Elm from Davis Square will discover Davenport as a faster
> route to Mass Ave, thereby actually increasing the traffic
> volume which your flyer implies you want to reduce. It just
> won't be two-way. Do you have contingency plans to put speed
> bumps on Davenport and/or to ban the left from Davenport onto
> Mass Ave if those problems occur? That turn is a problem
> already because drivers, often already frustrated, tend to not
> stop at the stop sign (and sometimes can't see it due to
> illegally-parked cars or trucks) and to ignore the pedestrian
> crosswalk on Mass Ave. If you do have such plans, how bad
> would things need to get to trigger them? I hope the answer
> is not "someone needs to get killed or seriously injured".
>
> (9) At least in my opinion, reinforced by periodic complaints
> from abutters and an occasional nasty accident, the city's
> success level with streets in the neighborhood that are
> one-way part way and then two-way for the rest of their length
> or very short and one-way has been underwhelming. There have
> been problems with people getting confused and/or deciding
> that the two-way area should extend, for them, a bit further,
> on White Street and on Roseland and, unless things have
> changed significant since I lived there, even occasional
> traffic sneaking onto Allen Street from Mass Ave. Repeated
> requests from those in the neighborhood for more vigorous
> enforcement of traffic rules in the area have gone unheeded (I
> was almost hit yesterday crossing Somerville Ave from near the
> corner of White Street toward the MBTA station (with a "walk"
> signal) by someone who apparently decided the red light and
> "no turn on red" sign on Mass Ave northbound really meant
> "don't stop at all, whip around the corner onto Somerville
> Ave, and view the light at White Street as discretionary".
> With little enforcement, these near-misses and traffic law
> violations in the area are common (e.g., I see examples of
> that illegal right on red every day and frequent illegal
> U-turns, sometimes against red lights, at Mass Ave and
> Roseland) it may be unrealistic to expect that a few signs at
> Mass Ave and Davenport will keep people from making the turns
> into the latter, especially when the alternatives are the long
> way around.
>
> (9) It is not even clear that making Davenport one-way as
> proposed will solve the two problems that I heard people
> complaining abound most. One was not merely that the street
> was narrow but that people trying to get down it often hit or
> sideswiped cars parked on Davenport and that the
> Davenport-Mass Ave intersection was often horribly congested
> as people tried to turn from Davenport onto Mass Ave while
> others tried to turn in from Mass Ave, often with a truck
> parked illegally near the corner to load or unload for one of
> the adjacent stores or restaurants. But, has been seen
> elsewhere in the city over the years, eliminating traffic
> choke points can often result in an increased accident rate as
> drivers, no longer forced to slow down by the obvious
> dangerousness of the street and working around oncoming
> traffic, treat a street, especially a relatively short one, as
> a raceway. Of course, faster traffic may lead to more
> accidents, including both damaged cars and collisions with
> cars coming in from Orchard, the various parking areas and
> driveways, and so on. Again, enforcement and/or other
> mitigation measures are key, not just changing a few signs and
> hoping for the best.
>
> (11) While they were obviously not discussed in February,
> three changes have occurred since then that might (or might
> not) have an impact on changes to Davenport. A new
> restaurant has opened in previously-vacant space under Yume Wo
> Katare. It appears to have led to added traffic in and out of
> the narrow driveway/alley behind that building. The two
> stores to the northwest of those restaurants have closed and
> there is no way to predict what they will be replaced with and
> when and what demands they will place on Davenport (unless if
> they will load and unload from Mass Ave). And the Star
> market loading dock is being reconstructed. I don't know for
> what reason, but they are lowering the ramps and making them
> more steep. If that results in either a change in the truck
> volume or in making it more or less easy to get trucks in and
> out of there, it could have a significant effect on Davenport
> traffic flows.
>
> ---
>
> Again, my primary issue is that these issues were all raised
> during the meeting or shortly thereafter. At the time of the
> meeting, there were strong indications that the city had not
> included any of them in its evaluation. Perhaps, after a
> careful evaluation, some or all of them would turn out to be
> less important than the issues some people have raised about
> the current traffic pattern. Or some might be showstoppers.
> But we won't know unless those evaluations are performed and
> those who live in the neighborhood and are likely to be
> affected are told about them. If that is impossible, please
> treat this as a six-month (or less) experiment with the
> traffic pattern to be reverted (or a different change made) if
> there is not a significant improvement in the problems
> perceived to be resulting from the current pattern. And, in
> any case, please establish criteria for figuring out whether
> this is working or not, including ways to measure them (other
> than that the complaints from those who have been asking for
> this stop), and share those with the community.
>
> Finally, it is difficult to even mention this given parking
> problems in the neighborhood, but the elephant in this room --
> apparently also never considered by the city -- is that the
> narrowness of the street, the problems with damage to cars
> parked there, problems mentioned at the meeting (but not
> above) about cars parked on Davenport overlapping Orchard (or
> vice versa), and the general traffic flow situation, could be
> improved in another way. There are already "no parking" areas
> along Davenport adjacent to Elm and Mass Ave and, for much of
> the day, opposite the small loading dock between the Star and
> Tags loading docks. If one eliminated parking on Davenport
> entirely (and enforced that), there would be no more damage to
> cars legally parked there, the street would become wider, etc.
> Something to think about if this change does not do the job.
>
> thanks for listening,
> John Klensin
> Elm and Saginaw
>
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
