Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
Urban Planners from Tufts University recently discussed the pros and cons of pedestrianization of Davis Square with the public.
By Beatriz Leite
This past Wednesday, June 21, five aspiring Urban Planners from Tufts University presented a plan, based on their study, to pedestrianize Davis Square on the weekends. Local residents and business owners gathered at Aeronaut Brewing Company to listen to the presenters and share their concerns and questions about this new proposal.
The Walk this Way project is based on a collaboration between Somerville Alliance for Safe Streets (SASS) and Tufts to study the safety and practicality of pedestrianization on Davis Square. The study started in February with research of analogous pedestrianization schemes and their impacts on cities throughout the United States, along with fieldwork on Davis Square analysis of traffic violations from both drivers and pedestrians.
From the literature review, the group of students assumed that pedestrianization increases safety, and can improve economic performance. However, the outcomes can vary due to the circumstance and setting, for instance the type of corridor, the pedestrian volume, and business sentiment. During the research based on data from Cambridge, MA, they realized that a more viable, safe, and effective option was to pedestrianize only during the weekends, not to affect rush hour traffic and the main streets.
In the field research, there was concern over the potentially dangerous merging in the square along with constant jaywalking at all crossings due to inconsistent traffic signs with over a minute wait. The researchers also expressed concern over red-light violations on College Avenue.
The group mapped safe and unsafe locations, and the number of inconvenient and unsafe locations was almost double the number of safe and convenient options. The mapping was done based on interviews conducted in March and April with volunteers and their opinions about the area. They expressed how parking nearby has become harder, how dark the streets are at night, how the College Avenue crosswalk seems misplaced, and how the delivery and loading/unloading system causes congestion.
The survey guided the researchers to conclude that most come to Davis Square for recreation or to run errands, and most do not take cars, even in the colder months, when the research was conducted.
The talk ended with questions from the participants, most residents or business owners in the Davis Square area. No vote or decision regarding the pedestrianization of Davis Square was made.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
Does the “more viable, safe, and effective option was to pedestrianize only during the weekends, not to affect rush hour traffic and the main streets“ framing really come from this study or is it the authors spin? I ask because especially the safety point is directly contradicted by other areas of the study that point out how many unsafe crossings there are (preserving those in that condition for the majority of the time is clearly not safer than eliminating the danger at them permanently). “Viable” and “effective” are also debatable. Temporary shutdowns would require manpower to implement both in moving barriers into place and likely also directing traffic for people used to driving through (both are totally unnecessary if the change is permanent), which would add costs to the project seemingly making it less viable. Likewise “effective” depends upon what effect you want but if you want the effect of creating a pedestrian friendly space free from the dangers, noise, and pollution of cars it is clearly more effective to do so permanently than temporarily. Also permanent changes would allow greater changes to the street scape, expanding the effectiveness of the changes than temporary transformations would.
As weeks to be consistent with coverage on this site as it relates to pedestrian and bike improvements, the community wasn’t unanimously “concerned.” You really should have the basic journalistic honesty to also acknowledge the residents speaking in favor of things you might disagree with and not simply erase them to pretend everyone shares your opposition to improved safety for pedestrians and people on bikes.
Well, that was a lot of verbiage to chew on. Anyway, seems to me that anyone’s opinion is welcome for posting here. So what’s your beef really?
Whenever it comes to anything related to bikes and pedestrians this site doesn’t even pretend to maintain objectivity. It perpetually frames the community as opposed to the same improvements the community itself has been demanding for years. The coverage of these issues on this site is also pretty uncaring about facts, making claims like assembly is designed to be car free (despite parking everywhere and outright hostile infrastructure for anyone not in a car), that young families in Somerville don’t bike (simply absurd), that bike lanes hurt businesses (every study on this I have seen says the opposite), etc. And all those are in the last few weeks. There is never any coverage tilting in the opposite direction either. It is clear this publication opposes any safety improvements for people on foot and on bikes and is more interested in upholding that position than in the truth. That’s the beef.
Have to agree to disagree on this one. I follow this newspaper/website pretty thoroughly and I don’t see any such bias. I suspect you’re only showing yours. This particular article, for example, is simply reporting the facts of what what was presented in this meeting. Full stop. There is no bias either way here. Also, there have been many articles posted on this platform that report on biking/pedestrian advocacy. What do you imagine this article is about anyway? You apparently just haven’t seen them, or maybe don’t even bother to look for them. Friendly advice: Check your facts. Breathe. Repeat.
This site does report on bike advocacy: negatively. Just look at the recent coverage of the bike lanes on highland ave for example. They published an incredibly poorly informed op ed that literally argued for preserving Peking spaces as “conservation.” I suggest you actually read the coverage because even here the community is said to have “concerns and questions” but there were in fact people there who voiced unequivocal support. That isn’t just reporting what is present it is spin. It’s a common spin for this site too like the coverage of a meeting where most people spoke in favor of the bike plan with the headline “Somerville residents express concerns about the implementation of the city’s bike network plan” and provides vastly disproportionate column inches to the opposing side (again despite most at the meeting and the many previous ones speaking in support of the plan). This article is repeating that same framing where the community is supposedly all concerned about things that the community has actually been fighting for for years and the city is finally moving on. These are also facts and do show a clear bias of the paper.
Don’t even get me started on the way Jimmy Del Ponte consistently publishes the most uninformed Facebook comments he can find. For a topical example from his article “Assembly Grow”: “Exactly, but then they also plan to make all of these buildings inaccessible by car, and only by walking, bike or T. It’s insane. Takes two hours to navigate Somerville by car.” Which of course is ridiculous given assembly has abundant parking, all the new buildings have lots, and you’d be hard pressed to take even an hour to go from the farthest parts of Somerville in the worst of the worst traffic but he responds to this: “Fact!“ a fact it is not.
I am more than happy to admit I have a bias here. I do not have a car. I walk bike and take public transit and I care more about the ability to do so safely for myself and others than I do about preserving car parking or through traffic in main squares. I wish the paper would have the journalistic honesty to do the same rather than biasing its coverage to present its editorial position as universal.
A lot of nonsense here, and I’m not going to burn a lot of wood on it. But someone has to counter your over-the-top criticisms of this publication. You’re overreacting and reading something into all this that just isn’t there.
And BTW, op-eds are opinion pieces, not editorial policy. So all is fair in that.
But it’s clear your mind won’t be changed. So G-d bless.
My claims are not over the top in any way. In fact, I provided sources for all the claims I made about this publication and if you follow them you will see that everything I said about them is true (and yes those articles are nonsense). Not sure what you claim I am reading into it that isn’t there because every specific claim I make about the articles is right there if you read them.
It’s easy to say “And BTW, op-eds are opinion pieces, not editorial policy.” But if all your op-eds point in one direction, you never publish anything from the other side of the debate (which based on every meeting on this subject and on the little polling available is actually vastly larger group), and your regular coverage reflects similar biases and framings to those op-eds (such as framing the community as if it is universally concerned about bike/pedestrian improvements with no acknowledgement about the concerns residents have about walking and biking on existing infrastructure or that the community has been calling on the city to make these bike and pedestrian improvements for years in both this article and the anti bike lanes on Highland Ave article), it no longer is limited to an opinion piece. When something is a consistent position across the publication regardless of the format of the article that is an editorial line and there are multiple situations, as I have listed, where the paper publishes things that uphold that line but simply are not true.
If you want to change my mind you should change your behavior. Your paper is not above reproach. It might actually be worth listening to criticism if you want to improve your coverage on these issues, but clearly you are more interested in just dismissing it so you can continue your windshield biased coverage.
I will also add that all is not actually fair in op-eds. That is holding journalistic publications to an incredibly low bar. OP-eds are still supposed to meet basic journalistic standards like telling the truth, and papers with good journalistic standards place various additional requirements on op-ed writers. The paper still holds responsibility for what it chooses to publish and publishing someone lying in an op-ed isn’t acceptable simply because it is an op-ed (especially if it is published without clarification or space for the opposing view). The paper still has a duty to do fact checking in its op-eds that it has shirked in this case.
Tch! Tch! Still steamed up and full of BS. Look, you are not the arbiter of journalistic standards. And it is not incumbent on the publication to “fact check” submitted op-eds. Where do you get this stuff? Opinions are opinions. You’ve obviously got yours, so why not submit an op-ed or letter to the paper? If it’s not too crazy I’m sure they’ll publish it. Not sure if you’re capable of that though. Anyway, don’t think for a second that you’re getting the last word in bashing this excellent publication. You think your nose got tweaked and you can’t walk away from it. Fine, keep blowing more nonsense. You just keep looking crazier by the word. And I’m loving it.
Just what in these opeds is supposedly not true? Dude sounds whacky to me.
@ Rachel, I think I have been quite reasonable and specific in my criticism. Auto correct on this interface has been unforgiving but the actual substance of my criticism has merit. For example I do believe op-eds should be bound by basic facts and where they aren’t the paper choosing to publish them should offer some form of clarification or space for rebuttal. That kind of thing is actually not at all uncommon. But if you want to continue to name call because I dare to raise issues with a publication’s consistent framing about an important local issue I think that says more about you than me.
@ joe I raised what is untrue in the op-eds above. But if you need them repeated: The claim in the highland ave anti-bike lane screed (more wacky than anything I’ve said) that young families don’t bike in Somerville for example is genuienly absurd. Similarly elderly people and people with disability do bike, which the article claims they don’t. Both of those claims can be refuted by looking at the community path for ten minutes. There are all kinds of bikes that cater to specific needs and some people have a significantly easier time biking than walking. That article also declares explicitly that bike lanes hurt businesses which is directly contradicted by every single study on that question I have ever seen. In the “Assembly grow” article the claim the author labels as “Fact!” That assembly is inaccessible by car and designed only for pedestrians and bikes is just ridiculous if you’ve ever actually been there. Additionally I think it is dishonest to headline an article about a the bike plan meeting and process at and through which most people spoke in favor of the plan, or even for going further, as the community “expressing concerns” about it. And I feel similarly about dedicating 4/5 of the column to those concerns despite those expressing them being significantly outnumbered by people speaking and writing in support of the plan.
I do think these things all in the last few weeks with nothing in the other direction indicates this paper has a clear bias against bike and pedestrian improvements, at least where there is any conflict with cars, and hasn’t always kept the highest standard of reporting about these issues because of it. I don’t think that is unreasonable given the what I have shared. I do want to dare them to prove me wrong about that, I will believe it when I see it. I hope I do. I genuinely want this paper to improve the quality of its bike and pedestrian coverage since as a Somerville resident I care about these issues and this is the only active local paper. If that makes me crazy I’m as crazy as they come.
Now you’re imagining that I’m name calling, on top of everything else? Never happened, except maybe in your fevered imagination. When your balloon finally lands I hope you look all this over and feel appropriately embarrassed. The funniest part of this is that you’re actually ranting in the comments section of an article that is OBJECTIVELY reporting on a study that essentially advocates for pedestrianization of Davis. And yet the big bad Somerville Times is supposedly biased against this and biking. My friend, please, have your meds checked.
What is a “highland ave anti-bike lane screed”? Asking for a friend LOL
I’ll have to agree with Rachel. I’ve followed this paper for a long time and I just don’t see any anti-cycling bias. In fact I see just the opposite. Plenty of stories over the years reporting on progressive initiatives for cyclists. And she’s right about op-eds being a form of free speech. If you disagree then speak up, either in comments or submit your own op-eds. But the paper’s editorial staff has no obligation, or even the right, to suppress or edit editorial comments. Not sure where you get the idea that it does. Anyway it’s clear that you have fastened onto one or two articles that you believe show such a bias as you claim without looking at the rest of the reportage this paper has done. Please take this into consideration.
@ Rachel, how you start and end that comment is incredible. You really should read back your last few posts including the one you just wrote if you really don’t think you are being personally insulting.
I am not inclined to think that this reporting is completely objective given its recent coverage of bike related issues, and what I know about that plan and the groups involved. I have reached out to Somerville Alliance for Safe Streets (SASS) to see if they do agree “that a more viable, safe, and effective option was to pedestrianize only during the weekends, not to affect rush hour traffic and the main streets.” That seems out of character with the type of position that group would take given its stated purpose and objectives. I am curious to hear their response.
@ Joe it is called “Bike Plan has merit, but not for Highland”
@ Selina That is possible. I can only go off what I’ve seen but frankly that is what I’ve seen. I hope if the paper does have better coverage of these issues in general that I see that reflected soon.
Papers are not required to publish every op ed they receive and they are not violating free speech rights to choose not to publish something. Papers also can solicit op-eds so the idea that they never have anything to do with what is said in them is not exactly true. Often if a paper publishes an op-ed taking one position they will wait until they receive or seek and publish another that takes the opposite position. You can see this in the Globe frequently. I do think that is probably good practice to avoid the chance of your op-eds reflecting certain biases. Maybe the paper could consider doing that in the future.
Oh well that’s an oped. Entitled to his opinion. Sorry.
The paper’s coverage of these issues is just fine. Chill pill and Netflix, dude.
Kind of sad watching you tear yourself to pieces with these verbal contortions you’re going through. I do sympathize with your concerns, but you’re way out of touch with reality on this. Take my advice and back off a little. It’s really beginning to look like there’s more to this personal agenda of yours than sticking up for biking issues. You just seem to have it out for this publication in general. Which is weird. It’s actually an ally.
I will see if SAAS believes “that a more viable, safe, and effective option was to pedestrianize only during the weekends, not to affect rush hour traffic and the main streets.” Is an accurate characterization of their position before I decide if the coverage is fine. It doesn’t seem likely to me that they do but maybe I will be surprised.
I would be glad my if initial impression was flawed by a limited sample of the paper albeit several in quick succession. I do not harbor any ill will to the paper, that would be weird, but I am frustrated with recent coverage of these issues. I do not think it has been of high quality. Maybe that is more of an issue with certain reporters and op-ed choices than the paper as a whole but I stand by my criticism of that non-Op-ed that rendered the majority of residents who spoke in favor of the bike plan invisible to focus on those who are “concerned” about it. That was not objective coverage at all. I listened myself to that city council meeting and that was not my impression. In fact I looked up the notes on the city council website for that meeting and it says “there were thirty individuals who offered comments during the public hearing, with 33% of them expressing opposition to some aspect of the plan.” That means 67% of comments were supportive and looking at the notes some of those complaints were people who wanted it to go further. I expect better from my allies than that. You can check yourself if you want it’s the 5/31 traffic and parking committee meeting notes.
There you go again, twisting the facts to serve your own personal bias, just like you’re accusing the Times of doing. OK, I’ll keep playing (it’s actually getting to be kind of fun, in a sad way). So, you’re assuming that 67% of the attendees approved of the plan because only 33% disapproved? What if only 20% of that 67% approved of the plan, with the remainder staying neutral? You see? You’re grasping at straws to try to prove this crazy idea that the Times is biased against biking. Blatantly dishonest. For shame.
And back to the op-ed stuff, do you honestly think this paper would either censor or outright refuse to run an op-ed by a former City Councilor? One that is running for reelection at that? As for the facts, if they’re wrong that’s for people like you to call them out, not the editorial staff. That’s why comments are encouraged, and yes, submitting your own op-eds or letters to the editor. All that long winded argle-bargle about what the Globe and others may or may not do is totally moot. The Times clearly strives to remain journalistically objective and neutral in all such issues of interest. You’ve just convinced yourself that they don’t, but that doesn’t make it so. Why, they don’t even do political endorsements anymore. Haven’t for years.
If you want to call out legitimately bad information, I’m behind you 100%. But bashing this fine publication with nonsensical accusations is not going to fly, not on my watch.
They didn’t break down the statistic that way but if you watch the recording on YouTube you can see for yourself that it wasn’t anything like 20% speaking in favor (a number you invented) it was a sizable majority of the speakers. And that is saying nothing of the written in comments which were also overwhelmingly in favor if you read them (also on the city council website). The only thing blatantly dishonest is framing a meeting where most people spoke in favor of the plan as if everyone spoke against it. There is clearly nothing that will convince you that anything this publication does is wrong so I see no point engaging further with you on this though.
And there you go yet again twisting the facts in support of your position. First, I never actually claimed that only 20% of the attendees were in favor of the plan, it was simply a way of illustrating that perhaps not all of the 67% you cited were necessarily in favor of it. You know this is true.
Now, to this article that seems to have tweaked your buttons so badly. I just had another look at it and guess what? There’s no bias either way in there. The headline points out that there were “concerns” – and there were. On both sides of the issue, pro and con. Let’s just look at the first paragraph:
“Somerville community members shared a mix of concerns and appreciation for the city’s Bike Network Plan during a public hearing held by The Somerville City Council Traffic and Parking Committee on Wednesday, May 31.”
A mix of concerns. Such raging bias. The article even-handedly presented these concerns both pro and con. WITH NO BIAS EITHER WAY (shouting to try to get this through your thick skull).
It goes on to describe said concerns from both sides.
Those at home munching popcorn over this can check the facts themselves. Here’s the article:
https://www.thesomervilletimes.com/archives/124880#more-124880
Glad you’re bowing out of the discussion now. You’ve already made a big enough fool of yourself and spread far too much misinformation.
And yes, newspapers make mistakes. When they’re genuine mistakes and they get called on it they usually issue retractions. There’s nothing to be retracted here. Good evening.
Seriously, does this paper pay you to do this?
You made up numbers that allow you to claim those concerned outnumbered those in support but if you actually attended the meeting or watched/ listened after you can see it is the vast majority speaking in favor. 67% actually does seem to correspond to the number of people speaking in favor from what I saw/heard. If you actually listen to the meeting or read the written testimony this should be pretty obvious to you. This is verging on gaslighting at this point considering you were not there, are denying what I saw and heard myself, are denying the only evidence available means anything, and are relying on coverage that is demonstrably biased given all of that for your entire understanding of the event even though there is more information available on both the city website and YouTube that puts the lie to that framing. If you don’t care to look that’s fine, but stop pretending you have anything to offer this discussion besides a blind defense of a publication you have a questionably tight relationship with.
Headlines carry the weight of the the story so writing a headline as if everyone is concerned is not only dishonest, given only a minority was, it frames the whole article in a dishonest way. When a headline only presents one perspective it biases the coverage, especially because unfortunately these days many people only read the headline. Headlines are also usually chosen by editors so the choices in headline do generally reflect the editorial choices of the paper. Likewise giving 4/5 of the column to the side of the argument that was outnumbered reflects a clear bias. That is also something a good editor would have called out and told the reporter to rectify and doing so is basic journalistic standards, truly. But what is there is clearly not even coverage for both sides as you claim, it is giving disproportionate weight to the minority position. If you cannot see how this is biased coverage you simply do not understand the issue of media bias and how it works. I don’t think you ever will at this point. This is an incredibly obvious example and if you read the comments of the article I am not the only one who saw it that way. In fact you seem to be the only person who has convinced themself that the phrase “residents express concerns about the implementation of the bike plan” somehow also includes residents speaking in favor of the plan.
This is why this kind of coverage is dangerous because for people like you who think it gives them an accurate understanding of what happened you end up adamantly denying the reality that those who actually saw what happened experienced. I genuinely feel bad this coverage has succeeded in making you do that. Biased coverage poisons debate and gives a false impression of the stakes placing the center of the debate far to one side of it from where it actually is. It also makes it so defending the simple truth appears as if you have your own bias, but as I have actually provided evidence for the majority of Somerville resident support the bike plan, regardless of what this paper leads you to think.
I am truly not the one making a fool of myself here. You have proceeded to make up rules of free speech for op-eds that don’t just do not exist, invent numbers out of thin air which allow you to write off to the actual statistics that challenge your narrative, and have even invented a non-existent city councilor, who if they existed deserves unrestricted access to print whatever he wants in local papers, regardless of the factual basis of his claims. All of that is way more ridiculous than anything I have done, which has just been to refute clear mistruths published in this paper and to see a bias in the direction those mistruths consistently point. Your inability to disagree without constantly throwing out personal insults, when I haven’t been Insulting you personally, is pathetic. Grow up. This is why I ask if the paper is paying you, why do you feel so personally offended by criticism of this paper’s coverage?
Again it is clear that nothing will convince you anything is wrong here because even while you admit “newspapers make mistakes” you clearly haven’t seen one from this paper you are not willing to apologize for. So even if you are presented with obvious issues like presenting a minority position as if it was the dominant one, giving that position the headline and disproportionate space relative to the actually dominant position, you still somehow see it as objective coverage. Truly if you don’t get it at this point I don’t think you are capable or willing for whatever reason. You do not seem like someone who can be reasoned with so I am not responding any more for you only to refute the nonsense you keep spewing and apparently explain 101 info on media bias.
Wow. Still wallowing in your irrational hatred. Had hoped a good night’s sleep might have sobered you up. You’re obviously back on whatever it is that winds you up like this, or else it’s just a natural lunacy that’s in you. You can’t accept the simple fact that the article you’re steamed up about is completely harmless to your cause. This is why I suspect some some other agenda is in play here. Whatever. You matter less and less the farther you go on with this. Enjoy yourself, I guess. The sane, well adjusted people following this know what’s what. None of these long winded diatribes are changing anyone’s minds. Seek help. You really seem to be on the verge of a breakdown.
Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs LOL
Seriously what’s wrong with this guy. Anyone reading that story can see that its pretty much even handed. Some people’s kids.
@ Jill I reached out and am still waiting to see if Somerville Alliance for Safe Streets agrees with how their position is depicted in this article. it would seem to be out of character with everything that group stands for. Hopefully you are willing to re-access that view if the group founded to push the city to move faster and stop compromising on bike and pedestrian improvements do not actually agree that ” that a more viable, safe, and effective option was to pedestrianize only during the weekends, not to affect rush hour traffic and the main streets.”
So now your suggesting that the author of this article just made up that statement? Even though it clearly states it came from the Tufts groups own research? You really are adrift you know?
The article claims it comes from a joint study by Tufts and Somerville Alliance for Safe Streets (SASS). Given what the latter group stands for and their history I cannot imagine them taking that position. I suggest you read their declaration and tell me if that kind of compromise with car traffic seems to correspond to their stated purpose as an organization. I did reach out to clarify and we will see how they respond, although you seem to have already made up your mind.
OMG he’s back again after getting hammered every which way every time. ok dude have fun lol
Seems to be getting pretty desperate to find someone to back up his story. He probably will. The bipolar types are pretty relentless. We’re not rid of him yet, I’m sure.
Hi all, I can see there’s already been a discussion about this. I was the liaison for this study as part of the Somerville Alliance for Safe Streets, and I have to agree that the study is not very well presented in this article.
First of all, this was a study of the Davis Sq streetscape, not whether Davis should be pedestrianized or not. Pedestrianization came into the study, sure, as the focus of the literature review and because it is a potential option for Davis – although it was not mentioned in the survey, roughly 1 n 7 respondents raised the idea. The data gathered was characterizing the square, both how it is now, and how it came to be.
I don’t like the use of the word “assumed” in the third paragraph – I believe it is documented that pedestrian streets are safer for pedestrians. Odd word choice on the point of the author. And the line about “realizing” that’s better to pedestrianize on the weekends isn’t based on Cambridge, nor for safety or effectiveness, as stated in the sentence. It’s because a pilot project is the best way to start a pedestrianization scheme, and the students are suggesting one that would align best with their observations about use at different times. And remember that their data collection was from February – it may well be that there are more pedestrians on Elm at all times in the summer.
Anyway, I could go on, but sadly I feel that this article does not read as a very good summary of the work the students presented. The final report is not available yet, but when it is, I will post it on the Davis Sq facebook group.
@ Rachel, Joe, & Jill Do you think any of you might owe me an apology for treating me like a lunatic for something that the members of the group itself agree with? You feel proud of yourself, does it make you feel big to hurl ableist insults at people? Even if I were “bi-polar” that is no reason to dismiss someone.
It is telling how you all have immediate responses dismissing me but there is a ringing silence when someone from the group responds agreeing that this is not an accurate summary.
@somerville times, will you issue a correction/retraction given that the group does not feel this is an accurate summary of their statements and makes editorial choices in language that present the opinions of the author as if it is coming from the speakers when it wasn’t?