Background
You can find another article about this here.
Under Mayor Elorza, as of the last several years, Providence has initiated a “Great Streets” campaign initiative, more commonly known as “Complete Streets.” This initiative aims to improve the community by reworking much of the current infrastructure to better accommodate other modes of transportation and accessibility and to encourage overall community well-being. Many local, state, and nationwide organizations have taken notice, pooling in funding and support. One local organization spearheading the effort in assisting the city with data from their own testing which is driven by temporary trails, community outreach, and surveys, is the Providence Streets Coalition.
Both the city and the coalition work together and separately on many things, including one of which is hosting public community meetings scattered around the city to present upcoming work and to gather thoughts around it. The meetings often consist of business owners, government officials, and locals. As a result, there’s often a divide between opinions, so much so that even local universities and prominent local businesses have spoken out against the proposed and ongoing construction of some of these initiatives. However, how much merit is there in the oppositional voices?
Opinion
Truth be told, much of the opposition to complete streets lacks any evidence to substantiate their often wild claims. This opposition, according to surveys, consists mostly of businesses, and those who attend the meetings may notice it is in addition to primarily older and seemingly wealthier residents as well. The statements and accusations heard at these meetings are nothing short of baffling. These claims not only lack evidence, but they are additionally often fallacious in nature, i.e., strawmen, red herrings, anecdotal, etc., or are simply coming from a place of ignorance and inexperience.
The opposition ignores the overwhelming evidence in favor of complete streets, even if it were to benefit them. Their comments are often classist and racist in nature, ignoring the large population of students, the lower and middle class, elderly and disabled, minorities, those with disabilities, and the local community, all of whom make up a large population of those who utilize non-car transit. They put profits and personal bias ahead of safety, prioritizing their business and interests over all else. Apparently, the car is more important than the lives of everything around it.
We’ve seen great success with complete streets, not just worldwide but in Providence. In fact, we often close off entire streets, and businesses immediately celebrate the boon to sales. Even businesses that don’t have available parking and/or live on a narrow street are able to thrive. Every single study seemingly published strongly suggests complete streets are beneficial in every single metric, not only to business but also to safety, overall community well-being, and reductions in all forms of pollution.
If the opposition continues to dismiss the overwhelming evidence without supporting their own, and they continue to parrot misinformation, how fruitful is it that their input be at all considered? And let’s be clear: it’s counterproductive for the opposition to even resist these proposals. The older and wealthier residents who come to these meetings expressing their opposition may one day regret this when car transit is no longer an option for them or even miss the chance of their property value freely going up. Lastly, when it comes to businesses, it’s a shot in the foot. We know complete streets help them, and furthermore, we know that ultimately, local businesses live and die by the local community.
To conclude, below are some of the most common claims and misconceptions you may come across.
Common Claims by Opposition
“The community doesn’t want it.”
Surveys of local populations around accessible street infrastructure continually suggest that the majority support it, along with a large number of businesses and organizations.
“No one bikes or walks, what’s the point?“
Current US infrastructure makes it inconvenient and punishes those who do not drive. Without accessible infrastructure, options are limited.
“We need third-party surveys and studies, not ones done by local non-profits.”
While it may be more accurate to have a third party conduct the surveys, third parties are also prone to bias, especially when considering who they’re hired by. If the city or state were to hire them, the opposition would claim bias since the state is pushing forward with accessible streets. The opposition has even claimed these surveys done by the authorities are outright false (see below). In the end, they will likely find a way to oppose it.
“Local and state surveys/data aren’t adequate or false.”
While this may or may not be true, it should be noted that this claim is almost exclusively used by the opposition. And let’s get this straight: businesses and the local community are notified months, sometimes over a year prior, and asked to contribute to assisting with the survey and data. In this instance, businesses were notified and still denied it. This data also agrees with findings from other cities around the world. So instead, this claim reads more like “the data and survey didn’t agree with me; therefore, it’s wrong.”
“Bicycle lanes and other accessibility infrastructure hurts business.”
Every single study seemingly published around complete streets and accessibility has strongly suggested the opposite. This is just one article with 12 cited studies, there are many, many more if you decide to take a peak around. People feel safer and spend more time in the area, and non-car users spend more money on average compared to their counterparts (see linked article). The inability to cross the street, bike, and bus safely is bad for business. In short, the only way complete streets hurts businesses is if they don’t have enough stock – i.e., expect even more customers and an uptick in overall sales.
“This reduces clientele diversity.”
“Clientele diversity? We checked all the businesses in the area, and only two were handicap accessible.” was a response by Liza Burkin when a business owner made the point around diversifying clientele. Diversifying clientele also means ensuring your business is safely accessible for all people using a variety of transportation. If your business is on a street that only caters to cars, you’re certainly missing a large portion of potential customers. Your current ones then may also be biased when asked about accessible infrastructure.
“How does this help with city growth?”
Providence is a dense growing city so catering only to cars is not the future. Indeed, accessible streets are the view of not only the US Department of Transportation, but it’s backed by multiple fields, including urban planning and infrastructure. This type of “smart growth” is of great use for cities as it improves community well-being and safety and reduces pollution, traffic congestion, urban decay, and sprawl. It also falls under the umbrella of Goal 11 by the United Nations to create safe and accessible transportation infrastructure.
“There’s a bike lane down the street already!”
Accessible streets aren’t exclusive to bike lanes. Nonetheless, it appears the sentiment here is that bicycles are only for recreation. One of the big points is to connect bike lanes so the flow of transportation is more safe and smooth.
“Why can’t we put the bike lane elsewhere?”
“How will people attend my business if they cannot drive?”
As noted in countless studies around complete streets, cyclists, pedestrians, and other non-car users bring in more business and revenue.
“How will businesses get deliveries?”
There are many popular destinations both in Providence, around the state, and worldwide that demonstrate even with zero parking and delivery infrastructure, and even businesses that don’t have motor vehicle access, they’re able to work around it.
“How do you know my specific business won’t be negatively effected?”
According to official government sources and the consensus in the urban infrastructure fields, overall business increases. Does this mean your specific business could be negatively affected? Perhaps, but likely not.
“How will my business now accommodate all the clientele that come from far distances (i.e., neighboring states and distant in-state cities? Where will they park?”
It is unlikely that the bulk of your clients are traveling such a distance to visit your store. Even still, someone traveling that distance and forced to park nearby likely wouldn’t mind. Additionally, there will be more available parking overall due to the encouragement of non-car transit. It’s important to note that local businesses live and die by their surrounding communities.
“Businesses are not adequately notified of changes, surveys, etc.”
Surveys, door knocking, and other means of communication are done months, often over a year in advance, continually. Interestingly, supportive businesses in the same area as oppositional businesses point out that they were notified well in advance, even claiming that oppositional businesses may be lying in some cases. The previous link also shows the Hope Street bike trail, where businesses complained about not being notified and having no meetings, yet the evidence proves otherwise.
“Businesses aren’t being listened to so they should have meetings just for them.”
Not only do business owners and leaders get access to local community meetings, but they are also notified and invited to participate throughout the entire process, often having their own meetings where they meet directly with those involved in the implementation.
“What about snow removal and emergency vehicles?”
As per state and national guidelines, this infrastructure has to follow a certain code to ensure these large vehicles are able to adequately utilize the roadway. If other cities in Rhode Island and across the world can do it, Hope Street can as well.
“This new infrastructure means the bus will stop in the street to pick up passengers, slowing down traffic.”
Forcing busses to often awkwardly arc to pick up passengers results in even a larger delay. The National Association of City Transportation Officials notes that various styles of bus boarding zones decrease boarding time and reduce traffic delays. It also creates scenarios where drivers may illegally and unsafely try to go around the bus, potentially striking bus riders crossing the street or oncoming vehicles.
“This will slow down traffic and cause congestion.”
Various studies around complete streets suggest that non-car transportation both eases congestion and parking needs. Slower, safer, more visible roads and fewer car users coupled with the fact that cars are simply large are some factors. Additionally, another unfounded claim from some is that bicycles on the road are slow and cause congestion. With this thinking, however, having a bike lane to the side will ease this.
“It will reduce parking.”
In some instances, physical car parking may decrease. However, we know that the encouragement of car alternative transportation reduces community use of cars and thus eases car parking needs (see above). Culdesac has a really good write-up about the cycle of parking.
“There isn’t enough parking in Providence.”
There isn’t enough people space in Providence. In this city, much of it is already comprised of parking lots with only a small number of parks, tree coverage, and green space. This alone already discourages non-car transit and public gatherings. Also, see above.
“Why don’t cyclists and other users just avoid the main road and take a detour?”
Like car drivers, other road users not only pay for the roads that are primarily damaged from car use, they have every right to have safe access to all streets. Asking them to detour is transit discrimination and ignores the issue at hand. Streets are for all people, not cars.
“This will hurt the elderly and disabled population.”
As adults get older, they are less likely to drive. Those with disabilities are also less likely, too. Many then utilize other modes of non-car transit, making it important that accessible infrastructure be considered.
“I know of a person who feels more unsafe with this new infrastructure.”
Low sample size, especially in light of the majority of the population supporting and benefiting from it.
“I don’t care about accessible streets.”
Do consider the effects of such infrastructure. In the advent of climate change, we must consider reducing forms of pollution. Since we know that 35% of emissions come from vehicles alone and that accessible streets reduce dependency on cars, we should expect lower pollution levels.
Lastly, while this infrastructure benefits everyone, minorities, people with disabilities, students, and lower-income individuals often rely on non-car transit. Being against accessible streets appears to have classist, racist, and bigoted undertones.
“Where is your evidence of complete accessible streets?”
The urban planning and transportation fields have a strong consensus that complete, accessible streets are the way forward. A Google search yields thousands of studies and reports from cities around the world. Here are just a few general resources:
General resources:
– sdgs.un.org/topics/sustainable-transport
– highways.dot.gov/complete-streets
– transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets
– pvdstreets.org
– smartgrowthamerica.org
– 195district.com
Notable articles:
– bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line
– bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/every-study-ever-conducted-on-the-impact-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes-has-on-businesses
– npr.org/2021/03/24/980894449/some-pedestrian-friendly-street-changes-may-stay-after-the-pandemic-ends
– highways.dot.gov/newsroom/federal-highway-administration-details-efforts-advance-complete-streets-design-model
– culdesac.com/blog/post/the-vicious-cycle-of-parking-requirements
“Studies on Active Mobility Infrastructure in Business Districts:
There is an abundance of evidence around the globe that shows how good active mobility infrastructure is for businesses and city life at large. Poirier’s 2018 study in Transportation Research acknowledges that merchants often object to bike lanes for fear of loss of potential business because they are unaware of the data. But Poirier found that bicycle lanes in a dense city like Providence “rarely produce profoundly negative outcomes,” and “that they are often associated with positive business performance outcomes.” Poirier also adds that cycling brings societal benefits such as “positive public health outcomes, reduced pollution, lower cost to travelers, and reduced demand on road space, freeing right-of-way for alternative uses.”
Harvard School of Public Health Professor Anne Lusk, who has studied bicycle planning worldwide for over 37 years, has shown that bike lanes contribute to economic development and also reduce crime (Alveano-Aguerrebere et al. 2018). Published this year, a literature review on 23 studies in U.S. and Canadian cities shows that the creation and improvement of active travel facilities has had “positive or non-significant impacts on retail and food service businesses abutting or within a short distance of the facilities” (Volker and Handy 2021). A 2019 study showed that in a downtown retail corridor, there were “no negative economic impacts associated with the bike lanes,” and that during the study, the number of customers actually increased (Arancibia et al. 2019).”
Providence Streets Coalition, Liza Burkin
Source: pvdstreets.org/hope
If I were walking, biking or bussing to a location, I wouldn’t exactly need more room to get there seeing as my footprint is already minuscule. However, if I wanted to be a patron for a restaurant/business and thought I’d have a hell of a time finding parking, I’m already dissuaded and no longer want to go. If I were the business owner I’d see this as nothing but an impediment to my survival, close up shop and move elsewhere where this wasn’t legislated. Then the complete streets may no longer be as complete as they once were.
Hi Hugh,
A large impediment to business survival is not embracing complete streets and catering only to cars as evidenced by many studies. And as we also mentioned above, complete streets helps alleviate parking woes.