Union Street Plans Still Rely too much on Paint Only

During the Tuesday online presentation and conversation for the Union Street project, it became awkwardly clear that City Staff hadn't used Councilor Stapleton's pilot with Winter and Union Streets during Saturday Market for any field work. They hadn't gone down to see how people on foot and on bike were using Union Street, and they hadn't seen how drivers did or did not observe the traffic changes. They had not been very curious, and they did not seem to think it was very important.

In a nutshell, that tells us something about how City Staff regard the Union Street Bikeway project.

The City's published the slide deck and video for Tuesday's presentation on the proposed design for Union Street.

You can see the previous draft version from last summer here. I'm really not seeing a lot of changes. Some people participating on the conference mentioned fewer trees taken out, and indicated they saw meaningful revisions. Fewer trees removed is a positive change. But as far as the bike lanes themselves go, the basic design does not seem altered, I am not so sure the changes are very meaningful.

Most generally, I do not think it yet meets in a direct way a full "family friendly" standard. Maybe you would trust your high school student, but would you send junior high or upper elementary school students to bike on it alone? Or your grandmother if she was not already a regular road cyclist? The City says "family-friendly," but the design isn't there yet. 

And as we will see, the City is still very much attached to its autoism.

Bike lane near Liberty is parking protected

Most of it is just paint, though
Floating bus stop and sidewalkification at Winter

While a couple of western segments near Liberty are still parking protected, the turn pockets invite car traffic. Cars and their drivers are still being prioritized. The City could say Union street was prioritized for non-car travel. There's the Marion/Center couplet, and Division was just made two-way. So why can't we make Union street primarily for non-auto travel with cars and their drivers as guests?

That the City was not embracing the full idea of a "family-friendly bikeway" or any kind of bicycle priority was confirmed when City staff nearly called Union Street an "arterial" and did outright call it a "secondary route," like an overflow valve for the Center/Marion couplet.

Between Liberty and High = 2,146 cars/day
(City of Salem traffic counts)

Union Street is formally designated a collector, with more traffic than a neighborhood local street - "collecting" from a few of them - but less than a minor arterial. On the segment at the Marion Parkade, between High and Liberty, the latest traffic count from November of last year shows 2,146; before that, one from 1991 shows 3,830. With the Pandemic, the higher number might be more representative even though it is older. The City should publish the set of traffic counts they are using on the project.

But in the grid, in context, with the new two-way segments nearby, and with the Marion/Center couplet, do we still need to prioritize auto travel as a "secondary route" here? This might need more analysis and discussion, as it seemed to be more an inherited article of faith than something questioned and then confirmed as necessary after full analysis.

Swoopier corners at Church Street
(Dark grey shows old curb to be removed)

Elsewhere, some of the drawings showed larger-radius corners, and staff specifically said they were rounded for fire trucks and buses. But they will also induce faster turning by people driving cars, sometimes whipping around a corner. And they lengthen, rather than shorten, the crossing distance for people walking. This was another way cars and drivers were prioritized rather than people on foot and on bike.

People on the call were concerned with the way the design managed conflicts during turning and passage through intersections. They asked for better protection for people biking and turning.

They also asked for separation and protection greater than mere paint. The eastern side of the project shows a buffered bike lane marked by paint only.

City staff said that problems with sweeping the narrow space of a curb-protected bike lane were an important reason it is not being used and reason that the design relied on paint only. Councilor Stapleton suggested we will face this problem more and more, and that the City should figure out how to sweep narrow spaces rather than design more paint-only bike lanes.

This fits six-foot lanes! - via Twitter

There are, in fact, narrow sweepers made just for this purpose!

City staff also appealed to "design standards that we need to maintain." (See one of the very first Strong Towns clips, "Conversation with an Engineer" for absurdity in designing to "the standard.")

"The standard" hasn't caught up with the reality of human aggression in cars, alas.

Protection and awareness was a refrain. Councilor Stapleton and a representative from the Grant Neighborhood Association mentioned several times that they were astonished by the frequency of aggressive drivers going past barriers during Saturday Market, who refused to honor that the space was temporarily not for cars. They asked for generous use of green paint and for bold signage aimed at drivers, not just wayfinding for people biking.

Since City staff, at least those directly working on this project, had not been interested in the Saturday Market project, this was all news.

It was interesting, too, that there has been a parking study, but the City did not publish it. Apparently there are nearby slack, underused stalls, and so removing stalls on Union did not threaten to pinch existing demand in the immediate area.

NACTO on bike lanes for all ages and abilities

In the end, in a general way the plan is still too autoist and does not prioritize non-auto travel enough. It is a compromise plan, an improvement to be sure, but not yet a full "all ages and abilities" plan. As I interpret Union Street, it does not fall neatly into one operational bucket in the NACTO guidance, but if the City wanted to, they could defend a full protected bike lane. The City has discretion, and they could choose for a better bike lane and could defend the choice. But the project development may be harmed by having people in charge of it who do not seem very interested in bike travel.

Cherriots does not seem too concerned about coexisting with the bike lanes, it is significant to note.

Cherriots Board Chair asks for protection - via FB

The City is still collecting comment, and you can tell them you would like to see stronger protection for the bike lanes and for people in them.