The URL can be used to link to this page

Recommendations for Improving Safety Connectivity of Bicycle Facilities in NorthamptonRecommendations for Improving Safety & Connectivity of Bicycle Facilities in Northampton, MA: A Bicycle-Forward Report By Zachary T. Bergeron As part of Main Street for Everyone and in fulfillment of the practicum requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Sustainability Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst January 31, 2022 i Table of Contents Definitions of Bikeway Terms ....................................................................................................... iii A Vision for a Bikeable Northampton ............................................................................................ 1 The State of Bicycle Facilities in Northampton .............................................................................. 1 Northampton’s Bicycle Policy & Bicycle Friendly Community Outcomes ............................... 1 Traffic Stress & Users of All Ages and Abilities ....................................................................... 3 Current Northampton Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................... 3 Construction Projects in the Works ............................................................................................ 4 Approaching the Crossroads of Recreation & Economic Development .................................... 4 Room for Improvement................................................................................................................... 5 System Gaps................................................................................................................................ 5 Challenges to Improvements....................................................................................................... 5 Approach to Recommendations .................................................................................................. 6 Key Destinations & Major Corridors & Areas in Northampton ................................................. 6 The East/West Community Core Corridor ............................................................................. 8 The North/South Retail Corridor ............................................................................................ 8 The East of the Rails Area ...................................................................................................... 9 The Rural West-Side ............................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations for Improving Northampton’s Bicycle Facilities ............................................. 9 Signalized Street Intersections .................................................................................................... 9 Filling in the Gaps on Elm Street .............................................................................................. 10 Improving Connectivity on the East End of Main Street .......................................................... 11 Improving Connections To & From the Multiuse Trails .......................................................... 12 Merrick Lane Ramp (AKA the Fitzwilly’s Access Point) .................................................... 13 Edwards Square Ramp (AKA the North Street Spur) .......................................................... 14 Non-Signalized Trail/Street Intersections ............................................................................. 15 Other Intersections ................................................................................................................ 17 Railroad Ave Trail Crossing ................................................................................................. 17 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 18 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 19 References ..................................................................................................................................... 20 ii Appendix A: Maps ........................................................................................................................ 22 Map 1: Bicycle Facilities & AADT Around Downtown Northampton & Florence Center .... 25 Map 2: Crashes Involving Non-Motorists (2016 to 2021) & Buffered Trail Access Points .... 26 Map 3: Northampton Bikeway Overview ................................................................................. 27 Map 4: Detailed Bikeway Section Overview ............................................................................ 28 Map 5: Detailed Bikeway Section: Downtown to Bridge ........................................................ 29 Map 6: Detailed Bikeway Section: Florence Center to Downtown .......................................... 30 Map 7: Detailed Bikeway Section: Leeds to Florence Center .................................................. 31 Appendix B: National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways ..................................................................................... 32 iii Definitions of Bikeway Terms These definitions are based on those used by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) in their Urban Bikeway Design Guide1. Unbuffered Bike Lane (AKA Conventional Bike Lane): an on-street bicycle lane with only a solid painted line between the bike lane and the adjacent vehicle travel lane. That is, a bike lane with no buffering between the bike lane and the adjacent vehicle travel lane. Buffered Bike Lane: an on-street bicycle lane with a painted buffer space between the bike lane and the adjacent vehicle travel lane. Protected Bike Lane (AKA Cycle Track or Separated Bike Lane): a bicycle lane designed to prevent vehicles from entering the bike lane. The protective elements can be bollards, planters, curbing, flex posts, or a parking lane with a buffer to prevent collisions with car doors. A protected bike lane with curbing in between the bike lane and vehicle travel lane can either be at the same level as the street or at sidewalk level (like the section of protected bike lane on Pleasant Street). Boston has used flex posts to create “quick-build” protected bike lanes. In the case of these quick-build protected bike lanes, the flex posts are removed in the winter to prevent damage to snowplows.2 Sharrow (AKA Shared Lane Marking): road marking indicating that bicycles can use the entire lane and vehicle traffic must share the lane. Usually the image of a bicycle below two chevrons pointed in the direction of travel. Signage: in this document (and in the accompanying maps), signage refers to “share the road” signs used indicate that vehicle traffic should share the road with bicycles. Off-Street Trail (AKA Multiuse Path): a path designed for pedestrian and cyclist use that is separate from any street or sidewalk associated with a street. They are wide enough for two trail users to pass in opposite directions without one having to give way to the other. The Mass Central Rail Trail is an excellent example in Northampton. Bike Box: an area designated by road markings that provides a bike-only space ahead of the vehicle stop line at a signalized intersection. Bike boxes allow cyclists to get ahead of queuing traffic during a red light phase, making cyclists more visible, reducing conflicts with vehicles turning right, and allowing cyclists to safely reach a left turn lane (as long as the box extends across all travel lanes). Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes: a painted box in a signalized intersection that a cyclist can enter to make a left turn from the right lane. The box is outside the flow of concurrent vehicle and bicycle traffic and places the cyclist in front of the queuing traffic that was to the right of their original direction of travel. The cyclist reorients themself in the box while waiting for the light to change. Two-stage turn queue boxes are useful for crossing busy, multi-lane signalized intersections or for making a left from a protected bike lane. There are no examples in Northampton currently. 1 National Association of City Transportation Officials, Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2 City of Boston, MA, “Better Bike Lanes.” 1 A Vision for a Bikeable Northampton In an ideal, bikeable Northampton, bike routes would provide safe, direct connections between key destinations and neighborhoods, providing access for cyclists of all ages and abilities. This would mean providing appropriately protected bike lanes on high trafficked streets (like Routes 5, 9, and 10) and implementing traffic calming strategies on low volume streets. These bike routes would be designed and maintained for all seasons with large portions shaded in the heat of summer and timely leaf and snow removal on par with that provided for vehicle travel lanes. Ample bicycle support facilities including repair stations, rest areas (with benches and water fountains), and bicycle parking, especially covered parking, would be provided throughout the city and particularly near key destinations. These bikeways would be part of a multimodal transportation network. The train station and key bus transfer hubs (like Pulaski Park) would feature secure bike lockers along with the current ValleyBike bikeshare stations. Programs would be in place to promote or require covered bike parting at multiunit residences to ensure that cycling in a practical option for all residents, no matter where they live in the city. Cargo bikes and bikes with trailers would be commonplace and accommodated in the system, especially with regard to parking and storage. At the municipal and state level, robust policies would be in place to promote cycling, cyclist safety, and swift expansion of the bicycle network. This would include an expansion of Northampton’s current Complete Streets Ordinance and the adoption of a Vision Zero policy. Approaches like Boston’s quick-build protected bike lanes – where flex posts are used to create temporary protected bike lanes without requiring complete street reconstruction and allowing the protective elements to be removed in the winter to prevent complications with plowing – would be used to quickly pilot bike lanes.3 Such a bikeable Northampton is achievable and should be strived for. The State of Bicycle Facilities in Northampton Northampton’s Bicycle Policy & Bicycle Friendly Community Outcomes Walk/Bike Northampton – Northampton’s 2017 Pedestrian & Bicycle Comprehensive Plan – sets out a vision of Northampton becoming “one of the top leaders in walk and bike friendly streets of any small city in New England” and outlines policies and projects to bring this vision to life.4 Northampton’s Complete Streets Ordinance, adopted in 2015, sets out the goal of “ensur[ing] that pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities are fully integrated into a safe and efficient transportation system.”5 The ordinance further aims to develop the city’s bicycle network so that “75% of households are within ½ mile of a multiuse trail and 85% of households are within ½ mile of a bicycle lanes or trail.”5 Walk/Bike Northampton and the city’s Complete Streets Ordinance show an interest in promoting active transportation but falls short in implementation. The city also has yet to pass a Vision Zero policy – a policy aimed at reducing traffic fatalities and severe injuries to zero. The last League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) evaluation of Northampton (Fall 2021) shows mixed results and virtually no improvements since the last 3 City of Boston, MA, “Better Bike Lanes.” 4 Alta Planning + Design and Watson Active, “Walk/Bike Northampton .” 5 City of Northampton, MA, Complete Streets Policy. 2 evaluation in Fall 2017. The League rated Northampton as a Bronze level community in both 2017 and 2021.6,7 While Northampton’s “Key Outcomes” – percent of commuters who bike, per capita bicycle commuter crashers, and per capita bicycle commuter fatalities – were better than the average Silver ranked BFC in 2017, in 2021 Northampton’s percent of bike commuters dropped by over a percent, brining it below the average Silver BFC and per capita crashes and fatalities have increased, dramatically shrinking key outcomes gap.6,7 Additionally, Northampton trails behind the average Silver BFC in most of the BFC Building Blocks, including the following categories of interest:6,7 BFC Building Blocks Northampton Average 2021 Silver BFC High speed roads with bike facilities 14% 35% Total bicycle network mileage to total road network mileage 17% 48% Share of transportation budget spent on bicycling 5% 11% It is impressive that, as of Fall 2017, Northampton’s key outcomes were above the average Silver BFC in spite of the noted BFC Building Blocks shortfalls, but the closing of the outcome gaps between 2017 and 2021 and the lack of Building Block improvements shows a lack of commitment to promoting cycling and improving cyclist safety. What sort of outcomes would be possible if more of the transportation budget was devoted to cycling and the bicycle network was greatly expanded? This question is all the more pressing as the threat of climate change becomes increasingly evident. According to a 2016 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, “on-road transportation” accounts for 26% of Northampton’s total emissions.8 Northampton plans to cut net carbon emissions in half by 2030 and to be completely net carbon neutral by 2050.8 Cycling could play a crucial role in reaching these greenhouse gas reduction goals. The 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) found that people are, on average, willing to bike up to 1 mile to run errands or engage in leisure activities, 1.5 miles commute to school, and 2.5 miles to commute to work.9 Considering Northampton’s size and population distribution (see map 1 for a visual of how much of the city is within 1 mile of downtown and Florence Center), cycling could play a tremendous role in cutting the city’s carbon emissions. Perceived safety issues, which cause traffic stress for cyclists, are a major cause of low cycling rates.10 The increase in crashes involving cyclists reported in the recent BFC evaluation shows how real these safety issues are.7 (See map 2 for crashes involving non-motorists in the past five years.) Northampton has incredible potential for increasing bicycle ridership and becoming a top leader in bicycle-friendly streets among New England’s small cities in a reasonable timeframe (the goal of Walk/Bike Northampton and the Complete Streets Ordinance) if the city commits more efforts to pursuing road projects that center bicycle facilities. While this report was born out of an interest in encouraging the city to prioritize bicycle facilities that feed into Main Street, the scope has broadened to include key destinations throughout the city, focusing on streets with high vehicle traffic. This report aims to provide 6 League of American Bicyclists, “Northampton, MA (Fall 2017).” 7 League of American Bicyclists, “Northampton, MA (Fall 2021).” 8 City of Northampton, MA, “Northampton Climate Resilience & Regeneration Plan.” 9 Federal Highway Administration, “2009 National Household Travel Survey.” 10 Pucher, Komanoff, and Schimek, “Bicycling Renaissance in North America?” 3 recommendations for improving the safety, connectivity, and functionality of bicycle facilities in Northampton in the hopes of increasing bicycle ridership throughout the area. Traffic Stress & Users of All Ages and Abilities A street’s level of traffic stress – the amount of discomfort a cyclist would experience on said street – is a useful way of gauging which cyclists are willing to use the street.11 The level of traffic stress is determined based on annual average daily traffic (AADT), the speed of traffic (the posted speed limit), and how separated the bicycle facility is from vehicle traffic.11 Traffic stress is expressed in four discrete levels ranging from “comfortable for all ages and abilities” to “uncomfortable for most.” Creating bicycle facilities for all ages and abilities should be the goal for the city. Even when just considering age, Northampton has a significant population of vulnerable road users, with around 18% of the city’s population being over 65 years old and another 12% being between the ages of 5 and 17.12 A survey study from Portland, OR found that women would be more willing to bike if more protected bike lanes were added to the city.13 By designing bicycle facilities for users of all ages and abilities, vulnerable and often excluded groups – seniors, women, people of color, people with disabilities, etc – are able to utilize these spaces more freely, resulting in more equitable use of space. Designing for all ages and abilities has even been found to boost ridership on bikeshare systems (and would thus be a boon for ValleyBike).14 (The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guide for selecting all age and ability bicycle facilities based on roadway conditions can be found in appendix B, and map 1 shows AADT for roadways around Downtown Northampton and Florence Center.) Current Northampton Bicycle Facilities As of the writing of this report (2021), there are on-street bicycle lanes along about 9 miles of Northampton’s streets (see map 3). This figure is up by about ½ mile since the publishing of Walk/Bike Northampton in January 2017.15 Of those 9 miles, a little more than ⅒ mile has protected bike lanes, a little less than ½ mile has buffered bike lanes, and the remaining 8.4 miles have unbuffered bike lanes. The largest portions of unbuffered bike lanes are found on Westhampton Road, N. Main Street (Florence), Elm Street/N. Elm Street, Prospect Street, South Street, and Bridge Street. All of these streets have either (1) a speed limit of at least 35 mph or (2) an AADT greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. Parts of Elm Street/N. Elm Street, South Street, and Bridge Street meet both criteria. (Map 1 shows bicycle facilities in relation to AADT.) Based on these figures and according to NACTO (see appendix B), all of these roadways – those with high AADT and those with lower AADT but higher speed limits – should have protected bike lanes if they are to serve cyclists of all ages and abilities. The remaining road with bicycle facilities is a segment of Main Street in Florence between Chestnut and Park Streets which has an AADT between 1,000 and 3,000 daily vehicles and a speed limit of 25 mph. According to NACTO (see appendix B), a street like this would be 11 Alta Planning + Design, “Level of Traffic Stress — What It Means for Building Better Bike Networks.” 12 Census Bureau, “2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate.” 13 Lubitow, Tompkins, and Feldman, “Sustainable Cycling For All?” 14 National Association of City Transportation Officials, “Who Is the ‘All Ages & Abilities’ User?” 15 Miles of streets with on-street bicycle lanes was calculated using the GIS data used to create the maps for this report but excluded sharrows and signage areas from the calculation. This value was then compared to those values published in the Walk/Bike Northampton plan (on page 2-23). 4 amenable to cyclists of all ages and abilities with the inclusion of unbuffered bike lanes. Unfortunately, this stretch of Main Street in Florence does not have any bike lanes, only sharrows and shared streets signage, and is particularly dangerous for cyclists to ride because of the parallel parking lanes and the many entrances to businesses. (Map 1 highlights gaps in the bicycle facility network where bike lanes end in favor of sharrows or share the road signage.) There are about 13.5 miles of multiuse trails in Northampton (see map 3). This figure is up by about 3.7 miles from the value provided Walk/Bike Northampton.16 The majority of multiuse trails are part of the two long distance rail trails in the area: the Mass Central Rail Trail (MCRT) and the New Haven & Northampton Canal Greenway (NHNCG). These two trails connect downtown Northampton, Florence, and Leeds to Williamsburg, Hadley, Amherst, and Easthampton. There are many proposed trails to expand Northampton’s trail network (see the dotted green lines on maps 3 & 4) as well as the proposed Northampton One, a multiuse trail that would encircle most of the city (not pictured on any maps in this report). Construction Projects in the Works There are three projects in the works regarding Northampton’s higher usage roadways that will add needed bicycle facilities to Main Street (Downtown Northampton), Damon Road, and King Street (see maps 3 & 5): 1. The Main Street redesign (currently in the planning stage) spans Main Street from West Street to Market/Hawley Streets (about half-a-mile) and will include protected bike lanes along 95% the project (with the last 5% having buffered bike lanes). 2. The Damon Road project (currently under construction) will add ⅗ mile of multiuse path along Damon Road from the Mass Central Rail Trail bridge to River Run and a further ¼ mile of unbuffered bike lane from River Run to Hampshire Heights (with the last portion on Bridge Road). The N. King St/Damon Rd/Bridge Rd intersection will include bike boxes ahead of the vehicle stop lines for all approaches. 3. Finally, the King Street project (currently under construction) will see unbuffered bike lanes added to both sides of the street between Bright and Finn Streets, plus a northbound protected bike lane and a southbound unbuffered bike lane between Finn Street and the intersection of King Street and the MCRT. These projects are adding an estimated 1.7 miles of bicycle facilities to the city. Approaching the Crossroads of Recreation & Economic Development In the next few years, the MCRT and the NHNCG will be completed (to Boston and to New Haven, respectively), putting Northampton at the crossroads of two long-distance bicycle trails. To capitalize on the economic opportunities of such a location, Northampton needs to further improve bicycle facilities throughout the municipality, specially focusing on improving connections between the trails and on-street bicycle facilities to move visitors from the trails to local businesses, improving on-trail wayfinding to local businesses (particularly restaurants and hotels) to alert trail users to attractions and amenities, and providing ample bicycle parking 16 This value was similarly calculated using the GIS data used to create the maps fo r this report and the published values in the Walk/Bike Northampton plan (on page 2 -23). Some errors might have been generated by the inclusion of the rail trail access ramps that have been added since 2017. 5 (including more covered bicycle parking) near trail access points and businesses for trail users to stow their bicycles while enjoying what Northampton has to offer. Room for Improvement System Gaps Northampton has an extensive network of off-street multiuse trail system, but the on- street facilities continue to put cyclists at serious risk (see map 2 for crashes involving non- motorists). The city views the rail trails as the primary throughways of bicycle traffic. Off-street facilities are incredibly important and provide routes with low levels of traffic stress, attracting lower confidence cyclists, but solely focusing on trails is not the best approach to increase bicycle ridership. The lack of lighting creates unsafe conditions for cyclists during twilight and night hours, as does the inconsistent plowing policy, which makes the trails unreliable throughways in the winter. While the trails prominently reach east, south, and west from their intersection, they are not close enough to the majority of key destinations throughout Northampton to be viable transportation options. Worse still, many key destinations near the trails are not connected to the trails with any on-street bicycle facilities, leaving them outside the reach of less confident riders. The importance of proximity to useful bicycle facilities cannot be understated here. The destinations to which people want to cycle are the same destinations to which they drive currently. As noted above, the average person is only willing to bike up to 1 mile to run errands or engage in leisure activities, 1.5 miles to commute to school, and 2.5 miles to commute to work.17 Longer paths between destinations (with more turns) have been found to discourage cycling.18 Having direct and safe routes to destinations is critical for attracting more people to cycling, which means that low stress on-street bicycle facilities are needed along highly trafficked roadways like Routes 5, 9, and 10. Complex, oddly-aligned intersections along on-street bicycle facilities can be very stressful for cyclists to navigate. For many non-motorists, these spaces can act as crevasses – narrow yet dangerous and impassable gaps in the system – which prevent them from cycling in the first place. The Main St/New South St/State St/West St/Elm St intersection cluster and the Prospect St/N. Elm St/Locust St intersection are excellent examples of how intersections can act as gaps in the bicycle facility network and barriers to cyclists. There are also multiple gaps in the current system where bike lanes temporarily disappear and are replaced with insufficient infrastructure like sharrows or signage, suddenly forcing cyclists into the vehicle travel lane before the bike lane later returns. Filling in these gaps would decrease the number of motorist-cyclist conflict points and thus increase cyclist safety (see map 2). These gaps in the on-street network – be they sharrow gaps, complex intersections, or gaps between key destinations and the current network – need to be addressed as soon as possible. Challenges to Improvements While there is plenty of room, and need, for improving the bicycle network in Northampton, there are, of course, limitations: primarily political will and budgetary restrictions. In January 2022, a new mayoral administration will take over; hopefully, active transportation 17 Federal Highway Administration, “2009 National Household Travel Survey.” 18 Hood, Sall, and Charlton, “A GPS-Based Bicycle Route Choice Model for San Francisco, California.” 6 both in policy and budget allocations will be prioritized, preferably closer to the average Silver BFC Building Block allocations mentioned above. Approach to Recommendations This report aims to provide a methodology to prioritizing bike infrastructure in order to create a bike network in Northampton that is safe and connected in the hopes of increasing bicycle ridership. In the best of all possible worlds, this would mean that all highly trafficked streets and roads would have protected bike lanes, but the reality of budget constraints is not being overlooked here. The recommendations in this report include lower-cost and critically needed improvements to the bicycle facilities in Northampton. This project began with a review of Northampton’s Complete Streets Ordinance, Walk/Bike Northampton, and the Bike Parking Guide to understand the city’s current thinking about bicycle infrastructure as well as the Brookline Bicycle Advisory Committee’s Green Routes Plan to consider what form the report might take. Using the Green Routes Plan as a guide, a list of key destinations in Northampton was compiled to inform the project. With that information in mind, various GIS data was collected, including current bicycle facilities, vehicle traffic volumes, speed limits, road crashes involving non-motorists, etc. The city of Northampton does not distinguish between different types of bike lanes in its GIS data, which is important information for this project. To distinguish between sharrows, unbuffered bike lanes, and buffered bike lanes, recent Google Streetview images, site visits, and consultations with MS4E Steering Committee members were used to build upon the city’s data. Five MS4E Steering Committee members – members of Northampton’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Subcommittee, local academics, and individuals involved in active transportation advocacy in the Pioneer Valley – as well as a UMass Amherst professor who frequently bike commutes from Northampton were consulted about Northampton’s bicycle facilities and the methodology of this project.19 The emergent themes from these conversations included safety concerns, the need for more direct routes between key destinations, and how cyclists’ and motorists’ destinations are the same (meaning that high traffic streets need safe bicycle facilities). The discussions about safety concerns highlighted the need to fill in the gaps between discontinuous segments of bicycle lanes (which would ideally connect key destinations) and between trail access points and on-street bicycle facilities. It was also noted by several interviewees that safety at intersections is a priority. These safety concerns are areas of acute conflict between motorists and cyclists. Such conflict increases levels of traffic stress and reduces the population of cyclists willing to use the network (see map 2 for crashes involving non-motorists). Keeping in mind the goal of increasing ridership, along with budget limitations and the distances people are willing to cycle for various tasks, this report primarily focuses on areas of Northampton with the highest density of residents and key destinations. Key Destinations & Major Corridors & Areas in Northampton Borrowing from the Brookline Bicycle Advisory Committee’s Green Routes Plan, this report identified key destinations as schools (including higher education facilities), medical centers, central commercial areas, community resources, and community recreation areas. (Most 19 Many of these conversations occurred within the week after the death of Charlie Braun on Elm Street, which informed their direction and content. 7 of the key destinations can be seen in the series of detailed maps: maps 4-7.) Below is a list of key destinations that guided the thinking behind the recommendations later in this report. • Grade Schools – providing good bicycle access to schools gives children a safe way to reach school while promoting healthy exercise habits and reducing the number of parents making drop-offs at the schools. o Jackson Street Elementary School* o Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School* o Bridge Street Elementary School‡ o John F Kennedy Middle School** o Leeds Elementary School** o Northampton High School* o RK Finn Ryan Road Elementary SchoolΔ • Higher Education – providing better bicycle access to Smith College would reduce the number of vehicle trips to the college. Thirty-five percent of Smith’s employees live in Northampton, which is an estimated 550 people20, as well as students living off-campus, in a position to reduce the number of vehicle trips they take to campus. o Smith College* • Hospital – improving bicycle access could benefit visitors, employees, and even some outpatients. o Cooley Dickinson Hospital* • Downtown/Business Areas – these areas are the destinations for many errands and shopping trips in Northampton that are currently primarily made by car. These areas are also an easy distance to many of Northampton’s neighborhoods. o Northampton Downtown* † o Florence Center* o Leeds (Mulberry St between Reservoir Rd & Main St)** o Grocery Stores ▪ River Valley Co-op (King St)† ▪ Big Y (King St)† ▪ Stop & Shop (King St)† ▪ Cooper’s Corner (Locust St, Florence)* ▪ Clementine’s (produce market; Florence St, Leeds)** ▪ State Street Fruit Store (State St)* † ▪ Cornucopia Natural Wellness Market (health food store; Armory St)* † ▪ Deals & Steals (Pearl St & Pleasant St)* † • Community Resources – these include important locations for various services that are hard to access elsewhere. Libraries, in particular, are important places for children, the elderly, and low-income individuals to access the Internet and various educational services. o Forbes Library* o Lilly Library* o Northampton Post Office‡ o Florence Post Office* o Leeds Post Office** 20 Smith College, “Smith & Northampton.” 8 • Recreation Areas – access to recreational areas is important for mental and physical health for all residents. o YMCA* o Fairground‡ o Veterans Field† o Childs Park* o Look Memorial Park** o Saw Mill Hills Conservation AreaΔ o Florence Recreation Fields** o Northampton Community Gardens† o Grow Food Northampton Organic Community Garden** Due to patterns of development in Northampton, many of these key destinations are geographically clustered along certain corridors. To aid thinking about the needs of cyclists in Northampton and the potential usefulness of bicycle facilities to connect locations, these clusters of key destinations have been used to conceptualize four travel corridors, outlined here. The East/West Community Core Corridor This corridor primarily connects the city’s central business districts – Downtown Northampton and Florence Center – with a large swath of residential neighborhoods (including Bay State) and an additional 11 of the 34 key destinations identified above (denoted by *). The main routes along this corridor include Nonotuck St, Riverside Dr, and Elm St; Main St (Florence), Route 9 (Locust St, N. Elm St, Elm St, and Main St (Northampton)); Prospect St; and the MCRT (see map 6). While the MCRT exists in this corridor, for many of the destination pairs (e.g., Bay State to Downtown) the rail trail is too far out of the way to be useful. This corridor also includes a significant amount of Northampton’s bike lanes (along Elm St, N. Elm St, and Prospect St). Leeds can be added as a conceptual extension of this corridor (see map 7). Doing so would add eight more key destinations to this corridor (denoted by **) and add N. Main St, Florence St, and Spring St to the corridor’s road network. The Mass Central Rail Trail is well positioned to connect Leeds’ key destinations to Florence Center and the rest of the corridor, but it would benefit from more trail access points. The North/South Retail Corridor This corridor follows Route 5 and Route 10 through Northampton and connects most of the city’s business districts as well as providing access to Hatfield, Easthampton, and Holyoke. This corridor also contains most of the local grocery stores. (Key destinations denoted above by †.) The major streets along this corridor include Route 5 (with the core existing between River Valley Co-op and the Conz St/Pleasant St roundabout), Hatfield St, State St, Jackson St, Conz St, South St, and the NHNCG (see map 5). Due to the locations of the River Valley Co-op and the Big Y (at Kingsgate Plaza), sections of Bridge Road are important elements in connecting much of the East/West Community Core Corridor to these grocery stores. The trail system provides some coverage from the Kingsgate Plaza Shopping Center to Downtown and then onto Easthampton along Route 10 – albeit with some issues related to trail access points which will be addressed later – but Route 5 locations are not very well covered in this corridor. Of particular note, Easthampton’s and Holyoke’s portions of Route 5 have buffered bike lanes (that also act as 9 breakdown lanes), but there are not bicycle facilities on Route 5 in Northampton south of Hockanum Road (leaving almost two miles of Route 5 without bicycle facilities). The East of the Rails Area This is a broader, less linear region than the last two corridors, but it has important transportation implications. In many ways, the railroad tracks that run just east of Route 5 in Northampton act as a significant barrier to travel. There are only six places for a cyclist (or pedestrian) to cross the railroad tracks: Damon Road (where the tracks cross the street at-grade), the MCRT (which crosses Woodmont Road at grade before passing under the railroad tracks), North Street, Bridge Street/Main Street, Holyoke Street, and Hockanum Road. Besides the MCRT, none of these crossing points currently have bicycle facilities, nor any markings or signage to alert motorists to possible cyclist activity (see map 5). (This is being addressed by the construction projects on Damon Road and Main Street mentioned above.) This leaves key destinations (denoted above with ‡) like the Northampton Post Office, Bridge Street Elementary School, and the fairground isolated from the rest of the city. The Rural West-Side This last region represents the more outlying suburban and rural residential areas of Northampton along roads like Sylvester Road, W. Farms Road, Ryan Road, Burts Pit Road, and Route 66. This area includes key destinations like RK Finn Ryan Road Elementary School, and Saw Mill Hills Conservation Area (denoted above with Δ). While this area also needs bicycle facilities – especially if the city is to reach the goal of 85% of households being “within ½ mile of a bicycle lanes or trail”21 – due to lower development densities relative to the rest of Northampton, adding bicycle facilities to this area will naturally be more costly per unit of ridership increased. As a priority of this report is to increase ridership as much as possible within funding limitations, the conclusion will focus on general recommendations and the other three corridors/areas. Recommendations for Improving Northampton’s Bicycle Facilities Signalized Street Intersections Intersections along on-street bicycle facilities can be very stressful for cyclists to navigate and can prevent people from cycling in the first place. This is doubly true for complex, oddly- aligned intersections – e.g., the Main St/New South St/State St/West St/Elm St intersection cluster and the Prospect St/N. Elm St/Locust St intersection – as they are by nature larger than right angle intersections and all road users are expending additional mental effort to understand how they navigate the space (leaving less capacity for observing other road users). Many of the following recommendations for signalized intersections would require full street/intersection reconstructions but should still be kept in mind. Recommendations for Signalized Street Intersections: • Add intersection crossing markings – preferably in the “colored conflict area” or “shared lane markings” style22 for best visibility – through intersections with bike lanes 21 City of Northampton, MA, Complete Streets Policy. 22 National Association of City Transportation Officials, “Intersection Crossing Markings.” 10 • Include bike boxes ahead of the vehicle stop line at signalized intersections, especially in places where doing so would increase cyclist access to left turn lanes o The plans for the Damon Rd/Bridge Rd/N. King St intersection and the nearby Damon Rd/Industrial Dr intersection are good examples of this o This approach should be considered for the cross streets along Main St while the project is still in the design phase, especially for New South St, State St, and West St, where these boxes could act as two-stage turn queue boxes for protected bike lane users wishing to cross Main St or turn left at one of those streets • Consider two-stage turn queue boxes for intersections where protected bike lanes are present o This should be considered with the Main Street redesign, especially for the Main St/King St/Pleasant St intersection Filling in the Gaps on Elm Street Recommendations for Filling in the Gaps on Elm Street: • Add bicycle lanes to the sections of Elm St and Prospect St that currently have sharrows or share the road signage (areas specifically defined below), even if it means the loss of some parking spaces • Extend the current N. Elm St bike lanes through the signalized intersection to the MCRT o Add a westbound bike lane on Prospect St between Prospect Ave and N. Elm St to allow additional access to this new section of bike lane o Include bike boxes at the signalized intersection • Convert the unbuffered bike lanes on Elm St and N. Elm St between State St and Locust St to protected bike lanes to better align with the NACTO recommendations • Consider adding bike lanes on Woodlawn Ave and Jackson St between Elm St and Barrett St Route 9 between Maple Street and King Street is an important (potential) cycling route, as it directly connects Florence Center and Downtown Northampton along with a range of other key destinations. While there is an unbuffered bike lane on N. Elm and Elm Streets between Locust and State Streets, there are sections where the bike lane abruptly ends: (1) between Bedford Terr and Neilsen Dr (near Smith College) where the lane is replaced with sharrows, (2) between Woodlawn Ave and the intersection of Elm and N. Elm Streets (near the High School) where the lane is replaced by some Figure 1. Note the gaps along Elm St, N. Elm St, and Prospect St (the first gap on Elm St is slightly obscured by a label). A legend for this map can be found on maps 4 & 5 in appendix A. Service layer credits: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA 11 share the road signs, and (3) west of Prospect Ave (before the N. Elm St/Locust St intersection, near the hospital) where the lanes are replaced by share the road signs (see figure 1 and maps 1 & 6). On-street bicycle facilities do not reappear on Route 9 until Florence Center. Interestingly, two of these gaps are paralleled on Prospect Street where (1) sharrows replace the unbuffered bike lane between Massasoit Street and Woodlawn Ave (near the YMCA) and (2) the lane ends and is replaced by a share the road sign at Prospect Ave (see figure 1 and maps 1 & 6). The gaps on Elm Street near Smith College and the High School and on Prospect Street near the YMCA should be high priority areas for adding bicycle lanes to current segments of bike lanes. Filling in these three gaps would require removing some parking spots along one side of the street in each area, but there should still be ample parking nearby in these areas. The bike lanes on Elm Street and N. Elm Street should also be converted to protected bike lanes, in accordance with NACTO’s design recommendations (see appendix B) to make less confident cyclists feel comfortable using this highly trafficked roadway (AADT > 10,000; see map 1). These changes would substantially reduce conflicts between cyclists and motorists. The recent death of Charlie Braun after being struck by a vehicle on N. Elm Street near the High School has highlighted for many how dangerous this area is for cyclists. High school students should feel and be safe on their way to school. It is unfortunate that both the Prospect Street and N. Elm Street bike lanes end abruptly at Prospect Ave, right before a major signalized intersection, especially with the proximity of these bike lanes to both the High School and the MCRT. The abrupt end significantly reduces the number of people willing to use the western ends of these bike lanes, as few would wish to face the Locust St/N. Elm St/Prospect St intersection on a bicycle in its current configuration. The N. Elm Street bike lanes should be extended through the signalized intersection to the N. Elm St/MCRT intersection. Prospect Street, west of Prospect Ave, should also have a westbound bike lane to allow for easy connection to the rail trail via N. Elm Street. This addition would allow for faster and lower stress bicycle access between Florence Center and Coolie Dickinson Hospital, the High School, Smith College, and Downtown Northampton. Adding bike lanes on Woodlawn Ave and Jackson Street between Elm Street and Barrett Street would additionally increase access from the MCRT to Jackson Street Elementary School, the High School, and beyond. If adding inclusive bicycle facilities to Woodlawn Ave is deemed too expensive and complicated, a multiuse trail along the east edge of Childs Park would be an acceptable alternative, as long as the end of that multiuse trail is appropriately incorporated into the Prospect/Jackson/Woodlawn intersection. Improving Connectivity on the East End of Main Street Recommendations for the East End of Main Street • Adjust the design of the King St/Pleasant St/Main St intersection to accept bike lanes and bike traffic on King and Pleasant Sts • Add protected bike lanes along Route 5 to connect the under-construction bike lane on King St (which will end at Bright St) and the protected bike lane on Pleasant St (which starts at Holyoke St) to each other and to the planned bike lanes on Main St • Add bike lanes on Bridge St to connect the planned Main St bike lanes with the current Bridge St bike lanes • Add bike lanes along Market and North Sts to the intersection of Bates St and the MCRT 12 While the inclusion of protected bike lanes in the Main Street redesign proposal is heartening, the lack of planning for integrating future cross street bike lanes – especially for the King St/Pleasant St intersection and the State St/New South St intersection – is disappointing. Pleasant Street has all of the city’s existing protected bike lanes (a little more than ⅒ mile of it) and around ¼ mile of sharrows connecting the protected bike lane (at Holyoke Street) to Main Street (see figure 2). King Street will soon have ⅓ mile of bike lanes between Bright Street and the Mass Central Rail Trail. Yet the Main Street redesign plan does not expect these segments to ever connect through the intersection. Adding protected bike lanes on Route 5 between Bright Street and Holyoke Street to connect the Pleasant Street protected bike lane to the soon-to-be-constructed King Street bike lane should be prioritized. Doing so would better integrate Northampton’s on-street bicycle infrastructure, improve cyclist safety on this highly trafficked corridor (AADT > 10,000; see maps 1 & 2; see appendix B), and provide access to more business and destinations along Route 5. Additionally, designing the King St/Pleasant St/Main St intersection to accept protected bike lanes and bike traffic on King and Pleasant Streets now, while the intersection is being redesigned, would make more sense and save the city money in the long-term instead of leaving the adjustments to the future. The Main Street redesign does add a buffered bike lane to the Market St/Hawley St/Bridge St intersection. This is important for improving the cycling connection between the East of the Rails Area and the rest of Northampton, but it will still be a weak connection, as it leaves about a ⅓ mile gap to the current bike lane on Bridge Street, a highly trafficked street (AADT > 10,000; see figure 2). This soon-to-be gap should be filled in as soon as possible, preferably with protected bike lanes, to connect the existing Bridge Street bike lanes with more of the system and to strengthen the connections between the East of the Rails area and Downtown Northampton. Even Market and North Streets are highly trafficked enough (AADT > 3000) to warrant buffered or protected bike lanes according to NACTO’s all ages and abilities standards (see map 1 and appendix B), which should be considered as a way to add an alternative connection from the MCRT to Downtown Northampton. Improving Connections To & From the Multiuse Trails The multiuse trails are an important and indispensable facet of Northampton’s bicycle network. Ensuring that the trails connect with the current and future on-street bicycle facilities is Figure 2. Note the existing bike lanes on Pleasant and Bridge Sts and the under-construction bike lanes on King St. A legend for this map can be found on maps 4 & 5 in appendix A. Service layer credits: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA 13 foundationally important for promoting cycling in the area, especially to capitalize on the economic potential of Northampton’s location at the crossroads of the soon-to-be completed MCRT and NHNCG. Providing sufficient wayfinding at each trail access point (be it a ramp or at-grade crossing) is critical for visitors to be able to find local destinations and amenities. Below are improvement recommendations for two NHNCG access ramps – the Edwards Square Ramp and the Merrick Lane Ramp – as well as recommendations for trail/street intersections generally and specific recommendations for the Railroad Ave trail crossing, but these are not the only access points that need such work. The three named access points in this section lie near the east end of Main Street and highlight the importance of including bicycle facilities along the downtown section of Route 5. Merrick Lane Ramp (AKA the Fitzwilly’s Access Point) Recommendations for the Merrick Lane Ramp: • Improve access from the ramp to the local key destinations: o Add bike lanes from the trailhead to Main St’s westbound protected bike lane ▪ Add a bicycle crossing and crosswalk to allow eastbound bike lane access o Add bike lanes from the trailhead to King St • Add wayfinding signage from Main St to the Merrick Lane Ramp and vice versa • Add bicycle parking near the trailhead Currently this ramp leaves trail users in the corner of a parking lot on Merrick Lane behind the Hampshire County Hall of Records, Calvin Theatre, and Fitzwilly’s. There are no wayfinding tools to direct trail users to Main Street or King Street nor any indication to motorists to expect cyclists in the area. The Main Street redesign is a perfect opportunity for planning how to better integrate this trail access point with the planned on-street bicycle facilities to ensure this connection to Main Street is useful and inviting to a broad range of rail users. Bike lanes should be painted from the trailhead to Main Street (along the side of the Fitzwilly’s) where the lanes could integrate with the westbound Main Street buffered bike lane before it becomes a protected bike lane. It would be advisable for a bicycle crossing and crosswalk to be added across Main Street in the vicinity of Strong Ave (similar to where one is currently located) to allow cyclists coming from the trailhead to cross the street to head eastbound toward Bridge Street. (This is already an in-demand pedestrian crossing which should be considered for inclusion on its own merit.) This option would improve connectivity from the East of the Rails Area to the trail network. Bike lanes should also be painted from the trailhead to King Street along Merrick Lane to allow cyclists access to King Street. This would possibly result in the loss of some parking spots on Merrick Lane. While paint is not protection, in the case of Merrick Lane (a lightly trafficked parking access lane), some painted bike lanes would serve the dual purpose of making the bikeway visible to motorists (for safety) and cyclists (for wayfinding). This trail access point should have well defined access to both Main Street and King Street, as both corridors hold key destinations for cyclists. The Main Street redesign process should consider how to provide access between the Merrick Lane Ramp and Main Street as the primary rail trail exit for reaching downtown restaurants, shops, and other amenities. Wayfinding signage to Main Street from the ramp would be useful to orient cyclists to their surroundings. And wayfinding from Main Street to the ramp is critical as the ramp is otherwise completely hidden from the view of anyone on Main Street. 14 Bicycle parking near this trailhead should also be considered, as not all trail users (especially those visiting from out of town) would want to ride along Main Street. Edwards Square Ramp (AKA the North Street Spur) Recommendations for the Edwards Square Ramp • Consider adding advisory bike lanes to North St between King and Market Sts • Include bike boxes on the North St and southbound King St approaches of the King/North/Summer intersection • Consider adding a contra-flow bike lane to Summer St between State and King Sts • Add wayfinding signage to direct cyclists from the ramp to the Prospect St bike lane (via Finn St) and to the MCRT intersection with King St • Add wayfinding signage for southbound cyclists on King St leading to North St and the Edwards Square Ramp The Edwards Square Ramp is positioned on Edwards Square, just off North Street – one of the six routes that connects the East of the Rails area to the rest of Northampton – at the edges of downtown’s central business zone and the entrance business zone (see figure 3). A few blocks away is the beginning of the Prospect Street bike lanes at Finn Street. North Street is on the segment of King Street that will soon have unbuffered bike lanes. With some adjustments to North Street, this trail access point could have safe and accessible connections to the nearby retail spaces, the Prospect Street bike lanes (and adjacent neighborhoods), and neighborhoods East of the Rails. The segment of North Street in question is a short (~400 ft) connection between King Street and Market Street. The street is two lanes with sidewalks on both sides and no space dedicated to on-street parking or shoulders. With its low traffic volume (AADT <1,000) and being a critical access point to both the NHNCG and the East of the Rails area, but not having extra space for bike lanes, this segment of North Street could be an excellent candidate for advisory bike lanes (AKA an edge lane road). Peak traffic rates would need to be studied and considered before changes are made to North Street. In this new layout, bike lanes with dashed lines would be added in each direction and the yellow center line would be removed (except at the two intersections). Cyclists would have priority along the street while vehicle Figure 3. Note the location of the Edwards Square Ramp (the blue trail access dot) in relation the under-construction bike lanes on King St, the railroad tracks, and the end of the Prospect St bike lane (near Finn St). A legend for this map can be found on maps 4 & 5 in appendix A. Service layer credits: Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA 15 traffic in both directions would share the center lane, only crossing into the bike lane to allow oncoming traffic to pass. At the signalized intersection with King Street, bike boxes could be added to all appropriate approaches to allow cyclists to get ahead of vehicle traffic at red lights. This layout would give priority to cyclists (making vehicle traffic more aware of their presence), calm traffic, and allow residents to get a feel for advisory bike lanes in case the city wants to use them elsewhere. This would be a huge improvement in bicycle friendliness from the design for North Street in the King Street corridor plan, which only includes some sharrows. Summer Street (between State and King Streets) is a one-way (eastbound) residential street with sidewalks on both sides and parking on the north side. The city should consider adding a contra-flow bike lane to this section of Summer Street to add more access to destinations west of King Street, especially for less confident cyclists who want to avoid Route 5 entirely. While it would be optimal for there to be bike lanes in both directions, the limited width of the roadbed suggests an east bound bike lane wound not be possible. This limitation should be kept in mind when considering projects on Summer Street. Wayfinding signage should be added to North Street to advise ramp users that the bike lanes on King Street end at Bright Street to the south but continue north to the MCRT/King St intersection and that the Prospect Street bike lane can be reached via Finn Street. This wayfinding signage from the Edwards Square Ramp to the Prospect Street bike lanes would give some a convenient and safe shortcut to neighborhoods off Prospect Street (like Round Hill) without needing to bike out of their way along the MCRT. Wayfinding signage should also be added for southbound cyclists on King Street alerting them to the upcoming end of the bike lane at Bright Street and indicating the tucked away Edwards Square Ramp as an access point to the NHNCG. Non-Signalized Trail/Street Intersections Recommendations for Non-Signalized Trail/Street Intersections: • Adjust city ordinance on multiuse trails to give right-of-way to trail users o Add more explicit signage on street approaches indicating this new right-of-way pattern (stop signs or something akin to MUTCD R1-5b “Stop Here for Peds”) o Replace the stop signs on the trails with yield signs or crossroad warning signs (MUTCD W2-1) to alert trail users of potential conflict while reflecting the new right-of-way • Maintain consistency in road markings and signage at these intersections to reduce confusion and conflict Because of a state-led effort to reduce the number of at-grade railroad crossings in the late 1800s, Northampton’s rail trails have several useful overpasses and underpasses to avoid crossing busy streets, making these sections of the rail trails a speedy thoroughfare for cyclists.23 There are still plenty of at-grade trail crossings, including the eight between Prospect Ave and Bardwell Street (see maps 6 & 7). These at-grade trail crossings are usually characterized by a bicycle and pedestrian warning sign (MUTCD W11-15) on both street approaches, crosswalk markings (some also have shark’s teeth), and stop signs for trail users. (Not all of the at-grade trail crossings, even those along the MCRT, are the same as can be seen at the MCRT/Chestnut St intersection.) While 23 Roy, A Field Guide to Southern New England Railroad Depots and Freight Houses. 16 many motorists are good at remembering to yield to pedestrians at these crosswalks, the combination of signs and crosswalk – and the underlying city ordinances – make right-of-way at these intersections confusing for all parties. The city ordinance on multiuse trails states that “all users of the multiuse trails” must “(1) stop at all street crossings; and (2) yield the right-of-way to vehicles in the road.”24 But state law dictates that vehicles are required to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks (which these crossings have).25 Yet the city ordinance explicitly excludes cyclists (and tricyclists) from the definition of pedestrians.26 These ordinances do not align with the expectations of road and trail users. Many motorists assume that cyclists have the right-of-way at these crosswalks just like pedestrians and will yield to any trail user – sometimes even when the trail user is waving them on – while other motorists will not yield the right-of-way to any trail user unless they are well into the street. On the other hand, some cyclists believe that the crosswalk grants them right-of-way (once they have obeyed the stop sign) because why would the crosswalk be painted at an at-grade trail crossing if some trail users are not meant to use it? These right-of-way ordinances are in conflict with each other and with the expectations of many motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. These differences in right-of-way expectations between groups cause conflicts and crashes. Unsurprisingly, two of these intersections (Chestnut St and Hatfield St) have been scenes of crashes between cars and cyclists in the last five years (see map 2). No combination of signage and road markings is likely to properly convey these rules barring, perhaps, posting the relevant ordinances in their entirety, but even then, confusion would abound. For instance, is someone walking on the trail a trail user or pedestrian when they reach one of these intersections? If the rail trails are meant to be highways for cyclists and pedestrians, then the presence of multiple, closely spaced intersections with stop signs defeats the purpose entirely and discourages cyclists. Requiring cyclists to completely stop (and start again) is energetically exhausting and frequent stops are tedious and frustrating. Between Straw Ave and Bardwell Street (about ⅗ mile), there are five trail crossings with stop signs (see figure 4). The parallel segment of 24 City of Northampton, MA, Multiuse Trails (§312-78.E). 25 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Marked crosswalks; yielding right of way to pedestrians; penalty . 26 City of Northampton, MA, Vehicles and Traffic: Definitions (§312-1) based on the definition found in MA General Laws Chapter 90, §18A Figure 4. Excerpt from the Crashes Involving Non-Motorists (2016 to 2021) & Buffered Trail Access Points. Note that none of the adjacent at-grade trail crossings here are more than 1,200 ft apart and the two closest are less than 600 ft apart. A legend for this map can be found on map 2 in appendix A. Service layer credits: Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA 17 Route 9 only has two stoplights. Between Prospect Ave and Bardwell Street (about 1 ⅓ miles), the MCRT has eight such intersections while the parallel segment of Route 9 has three stoplights. The city ordinances on multiuse trails should be adjusted give the right-of-way to trail users and signage at these intersections should be adjusted to accordingly. Stop signs for trail users should be replaced with crossroad warning signs (MUTCD W2-1) or yield signs while the street approaches should have “Stop Here for Trail Users” signs or stop signs. These intersections should be consistently and clearly marked to reduce any confusion. Other Intersections Recommendations for Other Intersections: • Widen the sidewalk portion of the MCRT near the MCRT/King St intersection • Legalize a Delaware-style Idaho stop • For more complex intersections without trail crosswalks, add intersection crossing markings Approaching the MCRT/King St intersection from the east requires trail users to make a sharp left onto a narrow sidewalk and ride along the sidewalk for about 100 feet before making a sharp right at the signalized trail crossing. This section of sidewalk is too narrow to accommodate cyclists in both directions and makes turning very difficult for many. Widening this short stretch of sidewalk would make this connection easier to navigate (especially for those with cargo bikes or poorer balance) and less stressful for pedestrians and cyclists alike. A Delaware-style Idaho stop is a variant on the Idaho stop in which cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs, but not stoplights, as yield signs as long as they slow down on their approach and ensure that there are no other road users approaching who would have the right-of-way. As mentioned before, coming to a complete stop and then restarting on a bicycle is energetically taxing. Allowing Idaho stops has not been found to decrease road safety and would make cycling more appealing to many. For more complex intersections involving the trail, like the Earle St/Grove St/NHNCG intersection, adding intersection crossing markings – preferably in the “colored conflict area” or “shared lane markings” style27 – would increase the visibility of these bike-able spaces and increase cyclist comfort levels. Railroad Ave Trail Crossing Recommendations for the Railroad Ave Trail Crossing • Add intersection crossing markings to indicate the preferred crossing pattern for cyclists • (As suggested before) add protected bike lanes along Pleasant St between Main St and Holyoke St to better connect this access point to existing (and near future) on-street bicycle facilities • Realign the northeast trailhead to point more toward the southwest trailhead • Add arches or statuary at the trailheads to draw attention to them o Engage local artists (via the Northampton Arts Council) to contribute designs 27 National Association of City Transportation Officials, “Intersection Crossing Markings.” 18 This trail access point is unique among those discussed so far as it is a non-signalized trail crossing at a major thoroughfare, Pleasant Street. The NHNCG crossing of Pleasant Street near Railroad Ave is a raised, cobbled intersection with trail crossing warning sides on all approaches. Wayfinding is the primary issue to be addressed here. The raised intersection is so large as to not feel human-scale – a feeling not helped by Pleasant Street’s high volume of traffic (AADT > 10,000). At a glance, it is not clear how bicycles are meant to cross this intersection (signs with arrows can only pull so much weight). A close reading of the trail wayfinding signs suggests that a cyclist coming from the northeast of this crossing should, upon reaching the intersection, first cross Railroad Ave and then cross Pleasant Street to reach the southwest trailhead. The easiest solution to this wayfinding issue is painting intersection crossing markings to indicate the preferred crossing pattern for cyclists. More involved treatments could include adding automated flashing crosswalk signs and realigning the northeast trailhead to point more toward the southwest trailhead. In general, both trailheads are relatively easy to overlook, but this could be a spectacular opportunity. The addition of arches or statuary could be used to draw the eye to the trailheads. This would not only improve trail wayfinding, but local artists could be engaged (via the Northampton Arts Council) to propose designs, making the trailheads (and the Northampton segment of the NGNCG) a local point of pride and a regional attraction. Considering this trail crossing’s proximity to Main Street and businesses along Pleasant Street as well as Pleasant Street’s very high traffic volumes and short segment of existing protected bike lane, the section of Pleasant Street between Holyoke Street and Main Street would be a good location for protected bike lanes. Adding these bike lanes would connect the existing protected bike lanes (between Holyoke Street and Hockanum Road) to the rest of the bicycle facilities network and add another lower stress connection between the NGNCG and Downtown Northampton. Between some locally designed trailhead markers and these protected bike lanes providing comfortable access to downtown businesses, this trail crossing could be a major regional destination for cyclists on the NGNCG and even a preferable exit for cyclists heading to Main Street from the MCRT (compared to the steeper Merrick Lane Ramp). Conclusions Northampton has focused its efforts on creating and maintaining its multiuse trails, but has lagged in providing safe, on-street bicycle facilities. Rather than approaching bicycle infrastructure piecemeal, the City of Northampton should deploy a network approach in order to connect existing pieces of bicycle infrastructure to each other and to key destinations across the area. The city should also reengineer intersections to increase safety and decrease the level of traffic stress for cyclists. Improving bicycle infrastructure would reduce traffic stress experienced by cyclists, and likely increase the number of people cycling as a viable form of transportation. If action is steadily taken to improve the on-street bicycle facilities, Northampton could not only shift more personal vehicle trips to bicycle trips – thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions – but, with the completion of the MCRT and the NHNCG, could also become a major destination for cycling tourism, bringing Northampton closer to its climate action goals and seizing an economic opportunity. If the city strengthens its focus on cyclist safety and network coverage, Northampton has incredible potential for increasing bicycle ridership and would be a top leader in bicycle friendly streets among New England’s small cities. 19 Acknowledgements This project could not have been completed without the support of so many people. I would first like to thank Elena Huisman, my Main Street for Everyone (MS4E) supervisor, for consistently useful feedback on how to approach such a large project and how to communicate my conclusions. I would like to thank the five MS4E Steering Committee members – Kristen Sykes (Director of Southern NE Conservation Projects and Partnerships at Appalachian Mountain Club), Jes Slavin (Communications Coordinator at MassBike), Michael Di Pasquale (Professor at UMass Amherst; Northampton Bike/Ped Subcommittee Member), James Lowenthal (Professor at Smith College; Northampton City Lights Steering Committee Member; Northampton Bike/Ped Subcommittee Member), and Eric Boudreau (Secretary of Friends of Northampton Trails) – as well as Mark Hamin (Umass Amherst Senior Lecturer in LARP) who met with me one-on-one to discuss Northampton’s bicycle facilities, the methodology of this project, and the first draft of the maps for this project. Their input during those conversations was foundational to how I approached the recommendations in this report. I would also like to thank Alicia Coleman for some last-minute feedback on my maps; her suggestions helped polish them up just a little more. I would like to thank James Thompson (City GIS Coordinator for Northampton) and Wayne Feiden (Director of Planning & Sustainability for Northampton) for providing access to the most up-to-date versions of the trail access point GIS data and the bicycle facilities GIS data along with answering all my questions about that data. Their answers helped me develop a firm understanding of the data with minimal head scratching. I would also like to thank my brother, Joshua Bergeron, and his housemate, Kim Toigo, for providing a place to stay while I focused on this project. Their kindness allowed me to focus on this project enough to create a product I can be proud of and to meet the requirements for graduating in February 2022. Finally, I would like to thank Maegan Bergeron-Clearwood for her proofreading of various drafts of this report and her support throughout this project and my UMass Amherst coursework. 20 References Alta Planning + Design. “Level of Traffic Stress — What It Means for Building Better Bike Networks.” Medium, August 16, 2017. https://blog.altaplanning.com/level-of-traffic- stress-what-it-means-for-building-better-bike-networks-c4af9800b4ee. Alta Planning + Design, and Watson Active. “Walk/Bike Northampton.” Pedestrian & Bicycle Conprehensive Plan. City of Northampton, MA, January 2017. https://www.northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6665/Walk-Bike-Northampton- Comprehensive-Plan_1-3-2017-Final?bidId=. Census Bureau. “2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate,” 2019. https://factfinder.census.gov/. City of Boston, MA. “Better Bike Lanes: Bike Lane Types.” Boston.gov, October 29, 2019. https://www.boston.gov/departments/boston-bikes/better-bike-lanes-bike-lane-types. City of Northampton, MA. Complete Streets Policy, Code of Ordinances § 285-51 (2015). https://ecode360.com/30769393. ———. Multiuse Trails, Code of Ordinances § 312-78.E (n.d.). https://ecode360.com/11956705. ———. “Northampton Climate Resilience & Regeneration Plan.” Climate Action Plan, January 2021. https://northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16237/Northampton- Resilience--Regeneration-Plan-as-adopted-2112021?bidId=. ———. Vehicles and Traffic: Definitions, Code of Ordinances § 312-1 (n.d.). https://ecode360.com/11956395. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Marked crosswalks; yielding right of way to pedestrians; penalty, Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title XIV, Chapter 89 § 11. Accessed November 18, 2021. https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiv/chapter89/section11. Federal Highway Administration. “2009 National Household Travel Survey.” Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 2009. https://nhts.ornl.gov. Hood, Jeffrey, Elizabeth Sall, and Billy Charlton. “A GPS-Based Bicycle Route Choice Model for San Francisco, California.” Transportation Letters 3, no. 1 (January 2011): 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3328/TL.2011.03.01.63-75. League of American Bicyclists. “Northampton, MA (Fall 2017).” Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card, Fall 2017. https://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2017_ReportCar d_Northampton_MA.pdf. ———. “Northampton, MA (Fall 2021).” Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card, Fall 2021. https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2021_ReportCard_Nor thampton_MA.pdf. Lubitow, Amy, Kyla Tompkins, and Madeleine Feldman. “Sustainable Cycling For All? Race and Gender-Based Bicycling Inequalities in Portland, Oregon.” City & Community 18, no. 4 (2019): 1181–1202. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12470. National Association of City Transportation Officials. “Choosing an All Ages & Abilities Bicycle Facility.” National Association of City Transportation Officials, December 6, 2017. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-ages-abilities- new/choosing-ages-abilities-bicycle-facility/. ———. “Intersection Crossing Markings.” National Association of City Transportation Officials, December 14, 2011. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design- guide/intersection-treatments/intersection-crossing-markings/. 21 ———. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Second Edition. Island Press, 2014. https://islandpress.org/books/urban-bikeway-design-guide-second-edition. ———. “Who Is the ‘All Ages & Abilities’ User?” National Association of City Transportation Officials, December 6, 2017. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design- guide/designing-ages-abilities-new/ages-abilities-user/. Pucher, John, Charles Komanoff, and Paul Schimek. “Bicycling Renaissance in North America?” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33, no. 7–8 (September 1999): 625–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00010-5. Roy, John H. A Field Guide to Southern New England Railroad Depots and Freight Houses. New England Rail Heritage Series. Pepperell, Mass: Branch Line Press, 2007. Smith College. “Smith & Northampton.” Smith College. Accessed December 12, 2021. https://www.smith.edu/about-smith/northampton. 22 Appendix A: Maps Map 1: Bicycle Facilities & AADT Around Downtown Northampton & Florence Center A comparison of on-street bicycle facility type against annual average daily traffic (AADT). This map includes buffers that highlight the areas within 1 mile (the distance the average American is willing to run an errand on a bicycle) of Downtown Northampton and Florence Center. AADT values for roads were excluded from this map if no value was provided for the year of data collection. The cutoffs for the AADT categories (particularly the 3,000 and 6,000 values) were based off the target motor vehicle volumes mentioned in the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways.28 Bikeways and trail access points modified from City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability (OPS). Open space/parks from City of Northampton, OPS. Zoning districts from City of Northampton, OPS used to create the 1-mile buffers around Downtown Northampton and Florence Center. Road AADT from MassDOT. Service layer credits: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Map 2: Crashes Involving Non-Motorists (2016 to 2021) & Buffered Trail Access Points This map documents the locations of reported crashes involving non-motorists (cyclists, pedestrians, and skaters) in the more built-up core of Northampton between Oct 12, 2016 and Oct 12, 2021. This map also includes some business zoning information, some key destinations (including schools), and two buffers (300-ft and 600-ft) around the existing at-grade street crossings and ramp-style trail access points. The buffers around the trail access points are meant to draw attention to the gaps between the off-street trail system and the on-street bike lanes. Special attention was paid to the buffers at trail access points near the railroad tracks (near Route 5) to highlight how the tracks further separate the East of the Rails Area from the off-street trails and the rest of Northampton in general. Bikeways and trail access points modified from City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability (OPS). Open space/parks, zoning districts, and zoning overlays from City of Northampton, OPS. Crash data from IMPACT (MassDOT). Service layer credits: Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA 28 National Association of City Transportation Officials, “Choosing an All Ages & Abilities Bicycle Facility.” 23 Map 3: Northampton Bikeway Overview A straightforward representation of the existing, under construction, and city proposed bicycle facilities throughout all of Northampton. Bikeways and trail access points modified from City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability (OPS). Open space/parks from City of Northampton, OPS. Service layer credits: Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community Map 4: Detailed Bikeway Section Overview The existing, under construction, and city proposed bicycle facilities throughout all of Northampton as well as some zoning distracts (primarily business and urban residential distracts) and locations for key destinations, transit stops, and ValleyBike stations. This map also highlights the extent of the three Detailed Bikeway Section maps (maps 5-7). Bikeways and trail access points modified from City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability (OPS). Open space/parks, zoning districts, and zoning overlays from City of Northampton, OPS. Service layer credits: Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Map 5: Detailed Bikeway Section: Downtown to Bridge The existing, under construction, and city proposed bicycle facilities as well as some zoning distracts (primarily business and urban residential distracts) and locations for key destinations, transit stops, and ValleyBike stations between Downtown Northampton and the bridge. The extent of this map can be compared to the extent of the other two Detailed Bikeway Section maps (maps 6 & 7) on the Detailed Bikeway Section Overview map (map 4). Bikeways and trail access points modified from City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability (OPS). Open space/parks, zoning districts, and zoning overlays from City of Northampton, OPS. Service layer credits: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Map 6: Detailed Bikeway Section: Florence Center to Downtown The existing, under construction, and city proposed bicycle facilities as well as some zoning distracts (primarily business and urban residential distracts) and locations for key destinations, transit stops, and ValleyBike stations between Florence Center and Downtown Northampton. The extent of this map can be compared to the extent of the 24 other two Detailed Bikeway Section maps (maps 5 & 7) on the Detailed Bikeway Section Overview map (map 4). Legend located on Detailed Bikeway Section Overview and on Detailed Bikeway Section: Downtown to Bridge. Bikeways and trail access points modified from City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability (OPS). Open space/parks, zoning districts, and zoning overlays from City of Northampton, OPS. Service layer credits: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Map 7: Detailed Bikeway Section: Leeds to Florence Center The existing, under construction, and city proposed bicycle facilities as well as some zoning distracts (primarily business and urban residential distracts) and locations for key destinations, transit stops, and ValleyBike stations between Leeds and Florence Center. The extent of this map can be compared to the extent of the other two Detailed Bikeway Section maps (maps 5 & 6) on the Detailed Bikeway Section Overview map (map 4). Legend located on Detailed Bikeway Section Overview and on Detailed Bikeway Section: Downtown to Bridge. Bikeways and trail access points modified from City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability (OPS). Open space/parks, zoning districts, and zoning overlays from City of Northampton, OPS. Service layer credits: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Map 1: Bicycle Facilities & AADT Around Downtown Northampton & Florence Center Map 2: Crashes Involving Non-Motorists (2016 to 2021) & Buffered Trail Access Points Map 3: Northampton Bikeway Overview Map 4: Detailed Bikeway Section Overview Map 5: Detailed Bikeway Section: Downtown to Bridge Map 6: Detailed Bikeway Section: Florence Center to Downtown Map 7: Detailed Bikeway Section: Leeds to Florence Center 32 Appendix B: National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways Roadway Context All Ages & Abilities Bicycle Facility Target Motor Vehicle Speed* Target Motor Vehicle Volume (ADT) Motor Vehicle Lanes Key Operational Considerations Any Any Any of the following: high curbside activity, frequent buses, motor vehicle congestion, or turning conflicts‡ Protected Bicycle Lane < 10 mph Less relevant No centerline, or single lane one- way Pedestrians share the roadway Shared Street ≤ 20 mph ≤ 1,000 – 2,000 < 50 motor vehicles per hour in the peak direction at peak hour Bicycle Boulevard ≤ 25 mph ≤ 500 – 1,500 ≤ 1,500 – 3,000 Single lane each direction, or single lane one- way Low curbside activity, or low congestion pressure Conventional or Buffered Bicycle Lane, or Protected Bicycle Lane ≤ 3,000 – 6,000 Buffered or Protected Bicycle Lane Greater than 6,000 Protected Bicycle Lane Any Multiple lanes per direction Greater than 26 mph† ≤ 6,000 Single lane each direction Low curbside activity, or low congestion pressure Protected Bicycle Lane, or Reduce Speed Multiple lanes per direction Protected Bicycle Lane, or Reduce to Single Lane & Reduce Speed Greater than 6,000 Any Any Protected Bicycle Lane High-speed limited access roadways, natural corridors, or geographic edge conditions with limited conflicts Any High pedestrian volume Bike Path with Separate Walkway or Protected Bicycle Lane Low pedestrian volume Shared-Use Path or Protected Bicycle Lane 33 * While posted or 85th percentile motor vehicle speed are commonly used design speed targets, 95th percentile speed captures high-end speeding, which causes greater stress to bicyclists and more frequent passing events. Setting target speed based on this threshold results in a higher level of bicycling comfort for the full range of riders. † Setting 25 mph as a motor vehicle speed threshold for providing protected bikeways is consistent with many cities’ traffic safety and Vision Zero policies. However, some cities use a 30 mph posted speed as a threshold for protected bikeways, consistent with providing Level of Traffic Stress level 2 (LTS 2) that can effectively reduce stress and accommodate more types of riders. ‡ Operational factors that lead to bikeway conflicts are reasons to provide protected bike lanes regardless of motor vehicle speed and volume. Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials. “Choosing an All Ages & Abilities Bicycle Facility.” National Association of City Transportation Officials, December 6, 2017. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing- ages-abilities-new/choosing-ages-abilities-bicycle-facility/.