Hmmm, it's not clear what privileges Mead and Cogswell to not have commuters. It already has a gratuitous timed do not enter at the Mass. Ave. entrance. It seems all residents of Cambridge would want "Do Not Enter Except Abutters" on their street.

Perhaps I'm missing something but isn't traffic signage meant to manage the reasonable and safe passage of vehicles? Mead and Cogswell Avenue are not streets that are designed to have that kind of dangerous and congested traffic flow and if something can be done to ensure the safety of citizens and children, why wouldn't the city do it? The city ought to proactively address these issues rather than reactively after a fatality, as with recent bicycle related fatalities.

Also, perhaps you are correct, it is a question of "privilege". It is not obvious why more "privileged" neighborhoods of Cambridge have these signs when others don't. For example, why should the residents of Lowell Street, near the corner of Mount Auburn Street have the "privilege" of not allowing rush-hour traffic to traverse their street? Is it in fact a question of the more advantaged residents of Cambridge having "privileges" not afforded the less relatively affluent neighborhoods? If so, this doesn't seem fair.

What are the rules by which any street is granted this privilege, as it is something that is done for similar purposes in other parts of Cambridge including the sign you mention? There needs to be a way to prevent this kind of traffic on streets not designed to handle it, obviously. People are regularly breaking the speed limit on Mead and Cogwell, a residential street with many children, just to avoid a traffic light. This is clearly untenable and a solution is definitely needed to avoid imminent disaster. Instead of being reactive (as with the recent bicyclist fatalities) Cambridge Traffic authorities need to get better at being proactive and responding to tax paying citizens suggestions for improvement.

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 conducting traffic counts within the next two weeks to determine traffic volumes and speeds.

Issue 3036687 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Issue 3036982 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Issue 3039558 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Issue 3039680 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

I applaud the neighborhood for organizing in this way, but everybody commenting and voting here is probably at least as effective as everybody opening new issues to report it.

@A. Barkai I agree entirely on Lowell street. It's not at all clear why they get traffic calming and other places don't. Upland turning into one-way at Raymond is another local example.

The problem with the "residential street" and "not designed to handle it" arguments is it applies to nearly all streets in Cambridge. I'm sure the residents of Rindge, Sherman, Garden, Walden, Upland to pick some nearby examples with heavy traffic all have similar feelings. Closing off some streets just pushes the traffic onto other "tax paying citizens". I see three classes of cars on our streets:

1) Residents - should be able to go where they want.
2) Commuters from suburbs to businesses in Cambridge - annoying but those businesses pay taxes too and at a higher rate than residents. We want to encourage them to take public transit or bike.
3) Commuters cutting through Cambridge to/from other towns which is probably a good chunk of the traffic - the city should be making every effort to minimize them.

For all cases though more enforcement of speed limits, stop signs and crosswalks would go a long way.

@Colm--I agree with your comments for the most part. The only difference I would suggest is that residents of the "busier" streets (i.e. Walden, Rindge, Sherman) have probably come to expect high volume traffic flow patterns, not that it is pleasant for them, admittedly. But when traffic patterns suddenly change and there is no respite from the high flow of traffic (and it poses major inconvenience as well as hazards that weren't there before) this becomes cause for alarm and a need to adjust things is in order. Of course it would be wonderful if there were no commuters, but this is inevitable, and ideally the traffic from these commuters could be contained to specific areas so at least there is some respite and calm on some of the streets as opposed to all streets. I don't live on Walden for a reason, so when my calmer side street becomes like Walden of course it is going to be a problem for me. Plus, cars naturally slow down on Walden during rush hour whereas they purposefully speed down Cogswell as a cut through which causes maximal danger to children and others.

Your examples of Rindge, Sherman, Garden, Walden, Upland are not valid. These are 'major' arteries compared to Mead and Walden. The streets you mention have higher speed limits and are wider than Mead and Walden so they can accommodate a heavier flow of traffic.

@ Claudia--we are going to file a "traffic calming request" with the city so are done using this site for now. https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/TrafficCalming/trcalm_form_request.pdf ; I didn't know it existed and it didn't come up in my initial google search for a way to address this but someone called it to my attention.

@A. Barkai: Excellent! Best of luck. Speed limit enforcement is all well and good but it it sounds to me like something physical--like a raised intersection--is really what's called for.

Given that the neighborhood plans to submit a traffic calming request, we will share our counts with the Traffic Calming Program.