Cambridge city councilors debated Monday night on the best way to respond to the state?s plans to put a commuter rail on the Grand Junction Rail line.
Some councilors argued that the best course of action would be for the city to advocate for the rail line to stop somewhere in Cambridge.
But others ? most vocally City Councilor Tim Toomey ? argued that advocating for a stop in Cambridge would take away from the city?s main message that the commuter rail shouldn?t run through Cambridge at all.
?I think common sense might say if you want a station in Cambridge you perhaps can?t fight tooth and nail the project itself and then expect the station to be located there,? City Manager Bob Healy told the council.
Toomey argued that the city should speak in one voice in an effort to ?derail? the train project.
?I don?t think we want to do double speak here. We?re either against this or we?re for it,? he said. ?We should not roll over on this issue at all. This is detrimental, period.?
The state has purchased the rights to the Grand Junction Rail line and has begun researching the potential of using it for a commuter rail line that would run from Worcester to North Station.
The line crosses multiple Cambridge streets, including Mass. Ave, and councilors have said that the rush hour train crossings at those locations would be a detriment to the flow of traffic.
Last September, the City Council passed a resolution expressing disappointment that the process in planning the commuter rail had not taken into account the needs or opinions of Cambridge residents. And in October, Toomey made clear that he opposed the project.
Monday night, Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis said that the a train line that stopped in Kendall Square might help to alleviate traffic congestion caused by new businesses that are coming into the area.
But other councilors continued to classify the project as a negative.
Councilor Leland Cheung said, ?It?s only going to prove to be a disruption and not a value added to the city.?
Councilor Craig Kelley added, ?I fail to see what the benefit to Cambridge is.?
And Councilor Sam Seidel said, ?I can?t help but think this is going to be anything but a net negative for the neighborhood.?
However, after talking with people from the state, both Kelley and Cheung said that their impression was that the project was going to go forward with or without the approval of the city.
Kelley said that when the state Department of Transportation says that it wants to ?work with Cambridge? that doesn?t necessarily mean that they would be willing to shut down the project.
?Working with us isn?t asking us if we want trains or not,? he said. ?It?s maybe altering the timing when the gates go down or dealing with the right-of-way vegetation. But it?s not ?Can we come through or can we not come through???
Cheung said that he would prefer a train that stops in Cambridge to one that doesn?t stop, but his best scenario would have no train at all.
?I would love for us to be able to have a say,? he said. ?I?m just looking for somebody to tell me how that would happen.?
