More than a dozen organizations have come to nearly identical conclusions about redesigns of a nearly 90-year-old traffic overpass in Cambridgeport: None of the state’s current options work.
Four preliminary designs for the William J. Reid Overpass were presented by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation at a virtual public meeting in January, down from six. All would add or maintain car lanes, and community groups and city officials wrote to point out concerns and contradictions with the state’s own transportation and climate commitment proposals – including a goal to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists over cars.
The assessments arrived to the state in six letters from 14 organizations. One letter signed by a coalition of nine advocacy organizations specifically invokes a state Project Development and Design Guide, the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive and MassDOT Pedestrian Plan that “establish a clear statewide mandate to prioritize safety and to increase pedestrian, bicycle and transit trips, particularly by centering the needs of the most vulnerable road users through proactive design choices.”
The Reid Overpass was built for a very different Cambridge. Finished in 1939 as part of FDR’s New Deal, it underwent repairs in 2013 as part of a statewide initiative after a deadly 2007 bridge collapse in Minnesota.
Even so, safety concerns persist. Chris Cassa, a volunteer with Cambridge Bike Safety and the Memorial Drive Alliance – two signatories of the coalition letter – put it bluntly: “It’s been a crash cluster” for pedestrians and cyclists.
According to a state map that includes data on high-concentration accident zones, the area was a top 5 percent crash cluster for pedestrians and cyclists from 2012 to 2021. Cyclist John Corcoran was struck by a car and killed there in September 2024, sparking protests and the closing of a lane on Memorial Drive.
The overpass abuts three environmental justice populations, Cassa added. These are areas the state designates based on income and demographic factors as “most at risk of being unaware of or unable to participate in environmental decision-making.” Low car ownership in these neighborhoods means residents depend on the overpass as pedestrians and cyclists while having less power to shape the infrastructure decisions that affect them most.
Adding lanes may simply induce more demand, meaning more cars passing through the neighborhoods, Cassa argued. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, whose board includes licensed engineers and transportation planners with decades of experience, noted that none of the proposals have been evaluated for impact on traffic or safety, and all fail to address the spillback in traffic from Boston, where congestion is most severe.=
Community leaders previously expressed surprise at the disconnect between the agency and locals. Conversation around the overpass started at a Department of Conservation and Recreation meeting in 2019, with minimal discussion since. CNA president Rebecca Bowie prompted city officials to follow up with state officials in 2024 after flagging the minimal communication in the five years since, according to Cambridge Day. Yet community groups and city officials continue to make clear that they had not been consulted during this process.
“The designs and options had come quite far without some of that infrastructure for input,” Charles River Conservancy also wrote separately. Executive director Laura Jasinski said.
What these groups want, however, is not a specific alternative design. Instead, they list elements MassDOT should consider: protected bike lanes, priority for frequent MBTA buses and fewer car lanes, “even if that means slower motor vehicle passage at peak times.”
Time to connect the dots
The letters arrive at similar conclusions largely independently. Cambridge’s Bike Committee secretary Randy Stern confirmed over email that the committee signed onto the coalition letter only after drafting its own.
The Conservancy also wrote separately. Jasinski said her organization was familiar with the coalition groups but chose to submit a letter independently to avoid weighing in on technical details. Emphasizing its areas of expertise, the letter urged MassDOT to coordinate with the Department of Conservation and Recreation to meet “the commonwealth’s mobility, climate and biodiversity goals.” She highlighted this in a phone interview. “Where the rubber meets the road is how we follow through on these,” she said. “We’re not seeing through the kind of big policy goals that we’re putting out as a commonwealth.”
Still, she said this is prime time to meet the needs of multimodal transportation in Cambridge. “We’re not seeing those dots connect yet, and this seems like an opportunity to do that.” Her organization’s letter notes that the designs could offer the opportunity to build on the success of DCR’s Memorial Drive Greenway Improvements, which treat the area as “a people-centered greenway rather than a traffic conduit.”
Each letter asked for meetings and collaboration before MassDOT begins construction in 2028. Cambridge city manager Yi-An Huang asked to partner with the agency to consider “options for the intersection that could meet both MassDOTs project goals and community goals.”
Next steps
A few alternatives have cropped up to address the deficits pointed out in the MassDOT proposals. Most commonly cited is a design by Peter G. Furth, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northeastern University, and graduate student Nathan David Obeng-Amoako. The two propose an at-grade design that includes a priority lane for buses and “wide paths and conflict-free crossings” for cyclists and pedestrians. Also circulating are designs by Ari Ofsevit and someone known as picoplaff.
All letters stop short of endorsing any particular design, and organizations generally decline to name any when asked for comment. The letter from Huang noted that Cambridge had “received and reviewed at least two proposals forwarded by advocacy groups that prioritize the safety of people walking, bicycling and riding transit” and contained elements “worth considering by MassDOT.” It did not say which proposals were meant.
Some concerns linger, but many people say they are encouraged by early signs that MassDOT is opening up to community feedback.
The agency has replied to the Charles River Conservancy to say it’s working to put up a website and formal comment systems, and “we appreciate that they are working on it,” Jasinski said.
MassDOT spokesperson John Goggin said, “Further study and extensive coordination are required” before decisions are made, including collecting traffic data throughout the school year to evaluate volumes for vehicles, and “fully vetting travel needs” for vulnerable road users. His response did not directly address the criticisms of the four proposals and did not commit to elements requested in the six letters.
Cambridge transportation commissioner Brooke McKenna expressed confidence that “MassDOT will engage with the city, as well as with interested community and advocacy groups, to develop a concept that will be more acceptable to everyone.”
Cassa remains cautiously optimistic. For him, advocacy around the overpass is about something larger than any single design proposal. “My dream is to make it so that people who are walking and biking and taking transit have at least as good an experience as people driving.”
About The Author
