FAQ: THE RELEVANT CONTEXT
The city’s recent Northampton Picture Main Street FAQ publication was the latest attempt to clarify its proposed plan for the redesign of Main Street. The FAQ document leaves unanswered some critical questions concerning safety, traffic congestion, and accessibility of the proposed redesign. It also omits the relevant context of external scientific studies. This document is intended to provide context by narrowing the areas of disagreement and focusing on the relevant data in external scientific studies.
The issue is not whether everyone wants a vibrant downtown. That is something everyone agrees on. Everyone also wants a pedestrian friendly downtown with café seating on wider sidewalks, high-visibility crosswalks, art crosswalks, more trees, and greater accessibility for all—including those with mobility issues. The city presented such a design (Alternative 1B) that would have met all of those goals while preserving two lanes of travel in both directions. However, the current plan is for a different proposal.
The primary area of disagreement of the current proposed plan relates to whether to add a so-called “protective” bike lane—of just .4 mile in length—that will necessitate eliminating one travel lane entirely and requiring another to be shared for left turns.
BICYCLE SAFETY
The city has repeatedly conflated a “dedicated or protected bike lane” with what the science refers to as a “well-connected bicycle network.” Those terms are NOT synonyms. The proposed Main Street protected bike lane would be just .4 of a mile long and does not connect with any other protected bike lanes. In fact, all of the bike lanes on every other road in Northampton are unprotected. The proposed bike lane is just .4 of a mile on Main Street does not meet the definition of a well-connected network. What does the science really say?
The FAQ document refers to an article in Forbes Magazine, “Protected Bike Lanes Increase Safety, Save Money And Protect The Planet, New Report Finds.” (Forbes Nov 30, 2022) as support for its position. The article refers to a study by the FIA Foundation entitled “Protected Bicycle Lanes Protect the Climate” found here: https://www.fiafoundation.org/media/xmwls4t2/cc-protected-oct201022.pdf
Although the study involved looking at two huge cities with enormous populations and population density (Bogata, Columbia—population over 7,000,000 and Guangzhou, China population over 15,000,000) that are entirely inapplicable to Northampton, the study clearly indicated that to achieve the desired results required a “well-connected network.” The study defined a “well-connected network” this way,
“Well-connected network: For most people to be able to ride a bicycle from one place to another, the two places must be connected by protected lanes that enable a reasonably direct trip from one to the other, without any need for riding a bicycle in mixed traffic.”
The proposed Main Street renovation does not come close to meeting that requirement. It is also worth mentioning that the FIA Foundation study also noted that, “Bicycle lanes must be physically separated not only from cars but also from pedestrians to prevent unsafe conflicts.” It does not seem that the proposed lane in Northampton meets the latter part of this requirement. The bike lane will be at sidewalk level and pedestrians will need to traverse it to get to parked cars.
The city declared, “Dedicated bike lanes are great for everyone. They result in fewer injuries, improved traffic flow, safer sidewalks, they’re better for the environment, and they make people healthier.” The
footnote provided by the city does not link to a scientific study but to a website for a company that sells the devices used to build these bike lanes. It is the equivalent of alleging that fast food is healthy and then citing the website of a fast food restaurant. So, what does the science really say?
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has an online publication under its Bicycle and Pedestrian Program called “Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide.” In Chapter 3: Why Choose Separated Bike Lanes? It includes the following:
"However, while cyclists may perceive that separated bike lanes provide increased safety, it has been difficult to identify conclusive safety trends due to a lack of data, especially bicycle volume data before separated bike lane installation."
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page03.cfm
This subjective impression of safety that cyclists feel is actually contradicted by the facts. The same chapter of the same FHWA publication indicates that an analysis of 17 separated bike lane corridors in 8 states and noted:
“an increase in total bicycle crashes” and "Additionally, the analysis found that increases in bicycle crashes after separated bike lanes were built were especially pronounced at intersections." https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page03.cfm
That is an increase in bicycle crashes AFTER adding the protected bicycle lane.
In further support of the proposed bike lane a Northampton city councilor included the following in a newsletter to constituents,
“Building safe infrastructure for cyclists increases road safety for everyone, increases ridership and may help manage roadway”
To support the statement the councilor cited a website called Science Daily which was reporting on an article initially published in Journal of Transport & Health entitled, “Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users” written by Professors Wesley E. Marshalla, Nicholas N. Ferenchak. So, what does the science really say?
The article involved a study of twelve large U.S. cities from Minneapolis to Chicago with populations ranging from 413K to 2.7M. The authors specifically noted that the population density was a factor. In their conclusion they indicated that the analysis involved, “data collection project that included twelve large U.S. cities” and further that:
“At this point, the results should not be considered generalizable to other countries or smaller cities.” [emphasis added]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342633446_Why_cities_with_high_bicycling_rates_are_safer_for_all_road_users
It is easy to misinterpret the findings if one reads only a report of a study or only the abstract. However, reading the actual study, one finds that in large metropolitan areas with heavy population density and without a nearby bike trail, adding these protected lanes can reduce cyclist fatalities. The additional
collisions at intersections are a worthwhile cost of reducing those fatalities. Fortunately, we are not experiencing bicycle fatalities on this section of Main Street, so there is no reason to welcome more bicycle collisions.
The bike lane between the sidewalk and a row of parked cars—here in Northampton—presents new safety hazards:
� Cyclists would be at risk from vehicles taking right turns onto side streets with uncontrolled intersections.
� Cyclists would be obscured from the view of drivers coming from behind over their right shoulders at potentially higher speed than cars in heavy traffic conditions.
� Cyclists would be at risk from vehicles entering from side streets that need to pull past the curb line for drivers to see oncoming traffic.
� Cyclists and pedestrians would be at risk from passenger side doors opening in sections with parallel parking (passengers, often minors, are less likely than drivers to check the sideview mirror).
� Pedestrians (particularly small children and the elderly) would be at risk when they step off the curb to get to a parked car.
PARKING
When the city writes, “The number of spaces on Main Street reduced by the Picture Main Street project (57) happens to be exactly the same number that is currently taken for the outdoor dining program. This is a live test of what it’s like to live without those spaces…” it should know the statement is misleading. It reads as though they will eliminate just the 57 spaces already removed for dining. In reality, the city will remove another 57 spaces in addition to the 57 already removed. A more accurate statement would be, if we can manage without those 57 spaces, then we can manage without 114. Of course, that type of logic would suggest that if we could manage without 114 then we could manage without 228.
The city writes, “Within a block or two of where you’re going, there is a spot - and remember that there is a parking garage with a bridge leading right into Thornes Market in the heart of downtown…” However, this statement ignores that for people with mobility issues who do not qualify for handicap placards, the walk from the parking garage can be burdensome.
The city alleges that, “the new design aims to make life easier, especially for those facing mobility challenges or age-related issues.” This is completely at odds with reducing the number of spaces on Main Street and directing motorists to park in lots further from their destinations. This is not enhanced accessibility for people with mobility issues, it is so that bicyclists need not walk from the bike path.
The city writes, “We have to embrace the idea that the city’s success is not built on being able to park directly in front of a given store on Main Street…” Then it goes on to add later, “Bicycles should be able to ride down the street and have a chance to pull up next to their destination on Main Street just like a car does. It’s not equitable to say they should be relegated to just the bike path.” When the city uses the word accessibility, it means accessible to cyclists without having to walk more than a few feet from a bike lane.
TRAFFIC VOLUME
The city writes, “Let’s be clear: Main Street doesn’t have four lanes today. Upper and lower Main Street are one lane in each direction with parallel parking on either side.” Of course, this statement ignores the fact that the city has not bothered to paint lines delineating the travel lanes in the middle section of Main Street and ignores that the bike lane at either end of Main Street will continue to be adjacent to traffic under any version of the plan. The city misleadingly lists three streets (Cottage Street in Easthampton, Russell Street in Hadley, and the Eagle Square area of Concord, NH’s North Main Street) for comparative purposes. None of the listed areas has a protected bike lane and none of them have four main roads emptying into the small section like our little Main Street. That .4-mile area has Route 66 coming in from Westhampton, Route 10 coming in from Easthampton, King Street (Route 5) coming in from I-91S, and Pleasant Street (Route 5) coming in from I-91N. It is completely disingenuous to compare roads that are straight aways without larger road feeding traffic into them.
Highways can handle a certain amount of traffic, but routinely experience back-up or have additional lanes in areas where major roads feed into them. The city suggests that “Traffic jams in the project area are mostly due to outdated signal timings at four key intersections.” Like the decision not to paint lines in the middle of Main Street or provide better markings for crosswalks, this statement begs the question, “why hasn’t the signal timing already been altered?”
A TRIAL RUN
The city pleads that “We do not have the ability to conduct a demonstration project that would put all the pieces accurately together.” The city decries calls to test any element of the proposed plan citing a one-size-fits-all strategy, “These are tried and true strategies that have been tested by engineering experts all over the country. Northampton is not the first municipality to implement this type of roadway redesign.” The idea that it works somewhere else means it will work here is inconsistent with reality. Plenty of cities are able to conduct trial runs; Austin, TX, Athens, GA, Warsaw, IN, Longmont, CO, Bay Area, CA, and Providence, RI to name a few.
The city pretends that a trial run would not be possible. It laments that actually doing a trial run, to make sure that cyclists and pedestrians will be safe with this bike lane design, “will be a waste of time and money.” That would seem a regrettable position to take when we are talking about physical safety. No one is suggesting that a trial run would be inexpensive or easy, but being expensive and difficult are not the same thing as a “waste of time and money.” Moreover, the city suggests that the new design will be safer. If it is safer, let’s do it now. Let’s put a trial run in place—the way other cities have done—to make us safer now. If it turns out that it is not safer, since it will not be part of a well-connected bicycle network as studies suggest it should be, then it can be changed before construction begins.
PUTTING THE REDESIGN IN CONTEXT
Remember that the issue is not whether we want a vibrant and safe downtown, it is whether we want to trade our downtown for a bike lane just .4 of a mile long without any science to suggest that it provides more than an unsubstantiated feeling of safety. If it really a good idea, it is worth a trial run.