Cambridge commissions 12-month study of municipal shuttle options to fill transit gaps

The Joint Transportation and Public Utilities and Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning committee of the City of Cambridge voted to adjourn after a detailed discussion about launching a 12-month Shuttle and Transit Gap Study to identify service gaps and options for a municipal shuttle pilot that would augment MBTA and private open‑door shuttles.

The study, which staff said will run about a year if contracted this summer, will document the existing bus and private shuttle network, analyze gaps and peer-city models, run data and community engagement, and produce recommendations on potential routes, branding, financial feasibility and partnerships. "We're very anxious to get started work on this shuttle study," Commissioner Brooke McKenna said during the meeting.

Why it matters: Cambridge is densely populated and has more jobs than residents, creating complex travel patterns that councilors said are not fully met by existing MBTA service or private shuttles. The study aims to identify where residents, workers and visitors lack reliable one-seat connections to neighborhood business districts, grocery stores, parks and employment hubs; and to test consolidation or coordination between private open‑door shuttles and a potential municipal service.

City staff described the analysis and public outreach plan. Andy Reeker, Transit Program Manager, said the team will combine location‑based travel data, on‑the‑ground verification and targeted community engagement. The timeline shown by staff envisions early data collection and documentation in quarter one, deeper analysis in the middle quarters, community engagement spread across the latter half, and final recommendations near the end of a 12‑month period.

Staff highlighted features of the existing network and recent changes. Reeker noted Cambridge has substantial week‑long transit coverage but identified parts of the city with limited or no walk access to buses or subway: parts of Wellington‑Harrington, the Port neighborhood, the Baldwin neighborhood (interior), Sherman Street near Danehy Park, and sections of Brattle Street in West Cambridge. He also highlighted two private open‑door services that run all week: Harvard shuttles and the EZ Ride service.

Costs and MBTA context: Staff warned of significant operating costs for added local bus service. "For the MBTA to run a local transit bus, it costs them about $300 an hour," Reeker said, and added that other systems report lower per‑vehicle costs (roughly $150–$200 per hour on the low end). Staff also summarized MBTA planned improvements: additional buses on Massachusetts Avenue to achieve roughly seven‑minute headways in weekday rush hours (about 15 minutes at other times) and a frequent cross‑city route concept connecting Inman Square, Central Square, Cambridgeport and regional connections toward Fenway and Union Square; the MBTA has not set an exact implementation date but staff said elements on the MBTA vision map are expected within a five‑to‑six‑year horizon.

Community priorities and questions: Public commenter Heather Hoffman described local frustration with recent MBTA network changes and urged the city to consider non‑commute trips. "It does not seem to me and to many of my neighbors… that anyone uses public transit for anything other than getting to and from work," Hoffman said, urging attention to shopping and other everyday trips.

Councilors pressed staff on scope, consolidation and partnerships. Councilor Azim advocated exploring whether existing private shuttles could be pooled into a coordinated citywide system: "What about if we just had one coordinated collaborative system where we join funds and join routes?" Several councilors urged staff to include seniors, workers, students, tourists and park access in outreach and to consider lower‑cost options such as targeted shuttles (for example, senior‑center grocery runs) as well as bigger visions for a citywide loop.

Engagement approach: Staff said they will combine data analysis (including location‑based services data), targeted outreach at bus stops, senior centers and other venues, and consultant‑produced materials for public engagement. Reeker noted the city used similar tactics during the MBTA bus network redesign, which yielded about 2,000 responses; staff told the committee they expect to use a mixed approach (surveys, in‑person meetings and targeted focus groups) and to coordinate with the city's community engagement team and with internal departments.

Partnership and implementation limits: Staff cautioned that private shuttles often serve employer‑specific needs and that institutional operators raise safety and stop‑siting concerns. Commissioner McKenna and staff said the study will examine consolidation, unified branding, and the feasibility of shared stops and routes, but they made no commitment to specific funding or to a free‑fare model. Staff also noted a recent state grant and a pilot for senior transportation (with an existing provider called Door to Door) that could inform non‑commute service options. The study will also inventory privately run open‑door shuttles and identify how to publicize them (for example, improving presence on Google Maps and real‑time displays).

Next steps and timeline: Staff said the city expects to start procurement later this summer—either via a house‑doctor contract or an RFP—and begin work in August if purchasing timelines permit, running roughly 12 months from initiation. Staff offered to share the study scope with councilors before final issuance for feedback. The committee took no substantive policy vote on service design at the meeting; the only formal action recorded was a motion to adjourn, which passed by roll call.