🏛 The Cambridge Record
Search ▸ Communication to the City Council

Letter from Tim Covello regarding City Manager's Agenda Item #5-Support for Option #1 (No Change to Garden Street)

COM 1270 #2025·From Tim Covello regarding City Manager's Agenda Item #5-Support for Option #1 (No Change to Garden Street)·Council meeting Apr 7, 2025·1 page·📄 Original PDF (city portal)
1 Macomber, Jennifer From: TIM COVELLO <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 5:01 PM To: City Council Cc: City Manager; City Clerk Subject: City Manager's Agenda Item #5-Support for Option #1 (No Change to Garden Street) Dear Honorable Cambridge City Council, My name is Tim Covello, and I own a condominium at 52 Garden Street. I am writing to support Option #1 as set forth in Commissioner McKenna’s report to City Manager Huang entitled “Garden Street Safety Improvement Project Report on Two-Way Traffic Alternatives” dated March 26, 2025. As you know, 2-3 years ago, the City of Cambridge mandated that bike lanes be built on Garden Street. Through a very deliberate and thoughtful process by the City engineering department, a solution was reached to accommodate those bike lanes. The only way to achieve the mandate, keep some level of traffic, keep the sidewalks and to keep a bare minimum of parking to accommodate residents in this area was to make the traffic one way. The current one-way traffic solution represented a compromise by all parties involved after months of discussion and deliberation. A two lane option was studied and rejected, because the public right of way simply isn’t wide enough to have two-way bike lanes, sidewalks, two lanes of vehicle traffic and some level of parking. 52 Garden street is a 42 unit condominium complex that relies entirely on on-street parking to accommodate the residents in the building. This includes the provision for a loading area to accommodate moves in and out of the building, delivery vehicles and maintenance vehicles. In order to accommodate the residents of the building, including residents who are disabled or who have young children, a reasonable level of nearby parking is required to service the building. The current parking situation, a compromise just recently made, is barely adequate for those needs, and there is no room for any further reduction in parking. I appreciate Commissioner McKenna’s thorough and thoughtful analysis and report. Best, Tim Covello