Thank you for reporting your concern to City of Cambridge via Commonwealth Connect. We have reviewed the information you provided our staff and will be investigating this issue further.

Prior to the installation of the sign in 1980, the traffic study showed over 400 vehicles per hour cutting through the neighborhood to bypass congestion on Alewife Brook Parkway. We have no reason to believe that this would be different today if the sign were to be removed. We would need to see support from over 2/3 of the neighborhood for removing this restriction before we consider any further changes.

Hi, I mentioned in the post that the reason this needs to be re-visited is because the demographics in the neighbourhood have changed significantly since 1980. I would like an answer as to why a 35 year old traffic study is the basis for the signage, since 2 years for a traffic study is the known acceptable window. Closing this post effectively ignores the entire reason it was made to begin with, and my argument was completely and outright ignored in the closing comment.
To say that there is no reason to believe that this would change, is to deny the existence of over 250 residents of Cambridge, which is absurd, to say the least. Why was this closed in reference to a study that I had said is outdated, based on guidelines for traffic studies?

As a resident of rhus neighborhood, I think the city should make an effort to survey the neighborhood regarding rhis issue. As the poster above noted a lot has changed since 1980. Maybe there is a way to open the entrance to residents using card activated pulons like they do in European cities.

While we understand that the demographics of the neighborhood have changed with the addition of more residential developments, that would not have an effect on the volume of cut-through traffic traveling through the neighborhood. We do not implement resident only access restrictions for public streets in Cambridge; as such any restrictions on traffic flow apply to all users of the road. We would need to see a petition from the neighborhood in support of removing the turn restrictions and allowing full access for all users of the road.

Hello,

I am another concerned resident of the area, and while I understand that the city does not implement resident-only access restrictions, I have had difficulty finding public information that justifies the continued existence of the sign since the 1980s. According to the city of Cambridge government website, there should be a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) performed whenever there is a substantial residential or commercial development, such as the ones that have lead to the aformentioned "demographic shifts" of the neighborhood.

Particularly, I am curious if there is was a TIS performed for 1 Whittemore (Linea Cambridge), which has over 60 parking spots for residents of the neighborhood, or any of the alewife center commercial and industrial properties. In particular, I know that there is a major expansion project at 62 Whittemore which recently changed over from "WR Grace" to "GCP Applied Technologies, and has a 100+ car surface lot on Whittemore ave as well. Both of these are recent changes, less than 5 years old, and should have traffic impact documentation regarding whittemore ave and the left/right turn onto Alewife Brook Pkwy affected by these developments.

These both fall well within the criteria for a detailed Traffic Impact Study, as defined by Cambridge city government itself, but I am having difficulty finding any of this information. I am re-opening this issue since i feel like this information is essential to a path forward, and want to see why this sign was still deemed to be necessary after these development projects. Please see attached guidelines from the cambridge.gov website for the assesment I am referring to. Thank you.

https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/files/traffic/trafficstudyguidelines112811.pdf?la=en

Some really impractical and frankly, ridiculous suggestions in this thread. Anyone that has waited in that traffic on their lawful way home via route 2 knows what would happen if the restriction were to be changed.

Actually we don't know, GTS. Which would be the whole point of conducting a study.

While the demographics of the neighborhood have changed, the conditions that cause the cut-through traffic issues (i.e. congestion on Alewife Brook Parkway) have not. The only way to study this issue would be to remove all restrictions for several months to allow the cut-through movements to happen. We would not make a change like that without hearing majority support from the neighborhood. We will need to see a petition with support from the majority before making any changes at this time.

For information including the results of a traffic study regarding the residential development at Tyler Court, see the decision linked below:

http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/SpecialPermits/sp276/sp_276_decision.pdf?la=en

Hello again,

Thank you for linking the traffic study, this is exactly the resource I was looking for. I did a full read-through of the document, and noticed an important piece of information in the Site Plan and Circulation section of the memorandum (Point 2, Pg15).

As stated by Susan E. Clippinger to the Cambridge Planning Board, "This site plan will prevent cut-through traffic between Alewife Brook Parkway and Mass Avenue by installing driveway gates at the center parking lot."
I believe that a statement from the City of Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation Director affirming that the development at 1 whittemore prevents cut-through traffic, is strong evidence that conditions have very much changed since the 1980 study.

In addition, she states that "Site access will be from five roadways including Whittemore Ave," naming it as an appropriate thoroughfare for peak-hour PM trip homes, which the sign explicitly prevents.

Based on these two facts, I believe that the signage is not up to date, and directly contradicts the Cambridge Planning Board's final transit plan as created in 2013. Since this is also the most up-to-date traffic study as well, this should be the governing document for the signage.

Please see attached image for the referenced section of the document. Thanks

The detailed trip analysis assumed that all traffic would enter the development via Tyler Court or Magoun Street to Whittemore Avenue. No entering trips were assumed via Alewife Brook Parkway to Whittemore Avenue due to the peak hour restrictions. The site configuration prevents cut through via the site, but do not affect the ability of drivers to cut through the neighborhood.

The department will consider this further upon receiving a petition with majority support from the neighborhood.

I am sorry, but once again, cited evidence from the report shows that this is not the case. Not a single one of those statements is backed with actual data from the report, and are in fact, contradictory.

>The detailed trip analysis assumed that all traffic would enter the development via Tyler Court or Magoun Street to Whittemore Avenue.

The attached table from page 18 of the TIS shows that 10 separate intersections were evaluated. 6 of these listed (Mass/Columbus, Mass/Magoun, Mass/Cottage Park, Mass/Edmunds, Mass/Cottage Park, Alewife/Whittemore) provide direct road access to the 1 Whittemore development and all its private resident parking. They even consider 4 other indirect access intersections (Mass/Alewife, Mass/Brookford, Mass/Cedar, Mass/Harvey/Cameron), which commuters in/out of the neighborhood use to street park via Cambridge residential parking permit.

Therefore, the assumption that all traffic would enter the development via Tyler Court or Magoun Street to Whittemore Avenue is strongly contradictory to the 2013 report.

>No entering trips were assumed via Alewife Brook Parkway to Whittemore Avenue due to the peak hour restrictions.

This was never stated in the report. Alewife Brook Pkwy/Whittemore is one of the intersections considered for both AM and PM in the TIS for vehicular traffic, in the attached table. The legality of this maneuver was not questioned once in the report.

>The site configuration prevents cut through via the site, but do not affect the ability of drivers to cut through the neighborhood.

This is not mentioned anywhere in the report. As i stated in the previous comment, Susan Clippinger affirmed that "This site plan will prevent cut-through traffic between Alewife Brook Parkway and Mass Avenue by installing driveway gates at the center parking lot." There is no mention of the risk of drivers cutting via other illegal routes once the gate was completed, and if anything, this is highly contradictory to Director Clippinger's conclusions.

Quite frankly, it is very disappointing for me to cite real traffic study data, only to have the issue closed every time based on pure assumptions, which typically contradict with the actual 2013 study and the Director's memorandum. Using data that precedes the most modern traffic study by 30 years to enforce a law is cherry-picking and factually/intellectually dishonest. There is no need to petition for something which has already been passed down clearly to the Cambridge Planning Board, and if this issue is closed again without any concrete citations to back up that status, I will pursue escalation.

The attached file includes the trip distribution diagram from the complete traffic study. Note that the study shows 0% of site traffic entering Whittemore Ave during the evening peak hour. Furthermore, the study does reference the existing turn restrictions and does not recommend any changes to those restrictions. The intersection was analyzed as traffic exiting the development does turn from Whittemore Ave to Alewife Brook Parkway.

Hi,

I do not understand why the issue keeps on getting closed every time I make a reply, because I never have all my questions or counterpoints addressed. I merely receive cursory replies that tell me I am wrong because of anecdotal or irrelevant evidence, and then suddenly the issue is closed so no further discussion can occur. This is extremely disappointing for a city that prides itself in academics, and should in theory support open, intellectually honest discussion.

The sudden existence of this figure, which was never included or referenced in the final TIS report, shows to me that either information is being withheld from us, or that the figure was never utilized in the final assessment, and therefore is irrelevant.

Without context, this figure is meaningless. Is there more to the study than shown to us before? Or is this just a preliminary analysis that was abandoned because it wasn't relevant to the final proposal? I don't see any of the markings of an official engineering study drawing, such as the name of individual responsible for creating the diagram, cross-referencing another table/diagram/study/methodology to support the numbers, and other good engineering practices that are missing.

My best guess is that based on its title: "Transportation Impact Study - Proposed Tyler Green Residential Development - Cambridge Massachusetts," this diagram was produced by VAI under contract for the residential developer for a preliminary assessment of the traffic situation, based on the existing roads and legal turn requirements of the year it was produced (2012).

In addition, the City of Cambridge seal, or any reference to Cambridge city government, are completely absent from the diagram. Thus, it has no relevance to the final report in 2013, and not only is it not allowed to supersede the more recent final study results, but should never be cited by city government if it was never approved by them.

Also, I want citations for where in the final, approved study that these points were made:

>Furthermore, the study does reference the existing turn restrictions and does not recommend any changes to those restrictions.

I keep seeing this point brought up, but I cannot find this written anywhere in the study. The words of Director Clippinger, who I have cited already in my last 2 replies,were strongly contradictory of this, and I should not have to quote her for the third time.

The 2013 special permit traffic data is from the 2012 traffic study, also the source of the graphic posted earlier. Prior Director Clippinger's note was specifically limited to traffic cutting through the Tyler Court site. Gates within the site do not address the issue of cut-through traffic in the neighborhood itself via city streets. The gates were intended to ensure that new cut-through routes which were never previously possible would not be created by the development of this site. The old cut-through routes which existed in 1980 when the original traffic study was conducted still exist. The congestion on Alewife Brook Parkway also still exists, and thus the desire of drivers to cut-through would still manifest significant volumes of cut-through traffic.

The department is willing to consider changes (not including abutter only limitations) if and only if we receive a petition with support from the majority of the neighborhood. Continuing to reopen this seeclickfix complaint is not a productive mechanism for this request.

If you would like a full copy of the 521 page traffic study, please email trafficengineering@cambridgema.gov to request it.

I will most definitely request the full study. It is impossible to have a productive discussion when one side has the comprehensive study and thousands of pages of other documents and data points which can easily be cherry-picked to fit an argument. This is a classic example of publication bias, i.e. the "file drawer problem."

In addition, despite repeated requests that all data be verifiable and cited, I continue to receive replies with no context, speculation, and contradictory to the only official city document that I have seen thus far. Every single point made in the final reply is fallacious and not verifiable in the final report. Citing line-by-line:

>The 2013 special permit traffic data is from the 2012 traffic study, also the source of the graphic posted earlier.

The 2012 graphic is not in an approved state, has no name, seal, or any traceability as given. I have no way to verify the validity the document unless the city decides to provide me with the full study. This is a classic example of publication bias and cherry-picking.

>Prior Director Clippinger's note was specifically limited to traffic cutting through the Tyler Court site. Gates within the site do not address the issue of cut-through traffic in the neighborhood itself via city streets.

This was not stated in the final report, and I have still not been provided with a direct quote to prove this claim. This is a strawman argument, re-interpreting someone else's words to cleanly fit another argument and discredit your opponent. The actual quote is: "This site plan will prevent cut-through traffic between Alewife Brook Parkway and Mass Avenue by installing driveway gates at the center parking lot." No further detail is provided.

>The gates were intended to ensure that new cut-through routes which were never previously possible would not be created by the development of this site.

This is purely anecdotal, and not mentioned anywhere in the final report.

>The old cut-through routes which existed in 1980 when the original traffic study was conducted still exist.

This is never mentioned in the 2013 final report. Also, upon further research, the regulation supporting this sign comes from install-regulation 1980-021, which states that the hours are "4pm-6pm Except Sunday." This does not match the hours posted (3pm-7pm), so the sign is not valid or legally enforceable as-is. Citations for signage standards and the traffic regulation code are attached.

>The congestion on Alewife Brook Parkway also still exists, and thus the desire of drivers to cut-through would still manifest significant volumes of cut-through traffic.

This is not discussed in the 2013 report. Everything stated here is an assumption, and is a false-cause fallacy since there is no evidence or studies to show that this is or is not the case. In addition, the statements made in two of the earlier posts that:

>Prior to the installation of the sign in 1980, the traffic study showed over 400 vehicles per hour cutting through the neighborhood to bypass congestion on Alewife Brook Parkway. We have no reason to believe that this would be different today if the sign were to be removed. We would need to see support from over 2/3 of the neighborhood for removing this restriction before we consider any further changes.

>The only way to study this issue would be to remove all restrictions for several months to allow the cut-through movements to happen. We would not make a change like that without hearing majority support from the neighborhood.

Places an undue burden of proof on the residents of Cambridge, rather than the organization/individual making the claim. All evidence needs to be proven by the claimant, not those questioning the validity of the claim. This is essential for ethical academic discussion, and democratic government in general, to prevent frivolous laws from being forced upon citizens of the United States with little resources to defend themselves.

To summarize, I simply request that:

-The city confirm why the hours are posted on the sign as 3pm-7pm, when Traffic Regulation Schedule 4 Section 7.3 states that they are 4pm-6pm.

(Link: https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/Traffic/trafficregulations/schedules/4Schedule%20July%202014.pdf )

-The city confirm that the signage is legal and compliant under MUCTD Part 1A,2

(Link: https://www.cambridgema.gov/traffic/engineeringplanning/Signs )

-The city confirm that the most up-to-date traffic study (2012-2013) is sufficient basis for the existence of the sign.

(Link: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/SpecialPermits/sp276/sp_276_decision.pdf?la=en )

Finally, I request that the issue be left open until the requests are appropriately answered. I do not understand how SeeClickFix is not a productive mechanism for resolving infrastructure issues, because that is exactly what this complaint is, and what the website is advertised as. Closing the issue provides the false impression that it has been resolved, when in fact, inquiries continue to go unanswered. I do not wish to escalate or pursue any ethics complaints regarding the handling of this issue, but will if these clear requests are ignored. Thank you.

Good grief, this is clearly the wrong forum for this discussion. Use this space to report missed trash collection, rodents, dead trees, graffiti, etc. If you want to alter traffic patterns in a neighborhood, file a petition as directed.

Maybe a smarter thing to do here is not resurrect a dormant thread just to complain about its existence.

I didn't reopen the thread. It should have stayed closed.

This issue is now closed. For further followup regarding past traffic studies or a petition to change traffic control, please contact the traffic department directly at trafficengineering@cambridgema.gov or 617-349-4700.

How is this closed?

Fine, I'll ask one question then. Why do the hours on the traffic regulation not match the sign? This is an appropriate forum, the section of the website is called "traffic sign complaints"

I will post it again. I will escalate to ethics if this is not addressed.

-Confirm why the hours are posted on the sign as 3pm-7pm, when Traffic Regulation Schedule 4 Section 7.3 states that they are 4pm-6pm.

(Link: https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/Traffic/trafficregulations/schedules/4Schedule%20July%202014.pdf )

If this is indeed not the website or avenue for considering or implementing traffic sign changes, then I will consider this issue closed and no longer re-open, if I can be provided with a document or procedure for filing petitions related to traffic issues. I am having trouble finding any formal resources publicly available from the cambridge.gov website regarding traffic petitions, and believe that there should be governing laws and procedures for this kind of process.

Otherwise, I have no route forward, because my efforts to perform a petition would be in vain if it does not conform to city standards for whatever reason. Please, share it here in the comment section here, so it can be transparent and available to other interested members of the public, who like me, are confused about the route to resolution of these kind of issues.

Thank you

Thank you for bringing to our attention the fact that the listed hours in our online published regulations for the Do Not enter restriction did not match the hours on the signs. The hours were extended to 3pm to 7pm in a regulation change in 2008, but we neglected to reflect that change the online version of our regulations. We have rectified this error. The 2008 change also eliminated the exclusion on Saturdays, and we will be adding that to the signs on the street as well.

Related to the petition mentioned earlier, there is no formal policy for petitions such as these. There is no set number of signatures required to revisit a policy, primarily because each situation is unique based on the number of residents impacted by the policy. In this case, it is reasonable to set a threshold of 50 signatures representing residents of the various streets impacted by the Do Not Enter regulation. Related to the petition, there is no formal written policy or format for petitions such as these. There is no set number of signatures required to revisit a policy, primarily because each situation is unique based on the number of residents impacted by the policy. In this case, it is reasonable to set a threshold of 50 signatures representing residents of the various streets impacted by the Do Not Enter regulation. In terms of content of the petition, we would just ask that you set forth clearly what you are trying to accomplish, (asking the City to study the feasibility of removing the Do Not Enter restrictions on Whittemore Ave), and have people sign and print their names and include their address.

Excellent, Thank you for clarifying everything and taking care of the signage concern! And as far as the petition goes, that sounds very reasonable. I will see what residents think and hope we can find a solution balance between public safety and traffic relief for this area. Much appreciated.

Thanks for fixing this request!