Photo by Maureen L. Sullivan
The Natick Select Board spent more than two hours during its Aug. 19 meeting discussing the reasons for undertaking the Main Street Improvement Project, the pros and cons of different approaches, and possible next steps. While the town and board have hosted numerous sessions regarding potential Natick Center renovations, the elected body hadn’t had an opportunity to truly deliberate on the subject in keeping with open meeting laws.
The conversation included a back-to-basics summary of why the project is happening—roadway repair, safety for all users, economic development, etc.—and what the board will actually vote on. Board members also addressed public feedback such as concerns that the town is undertaking the project as a grant-chasing exercise in that the cost to the town for redoing Main Street includes options that would require town funds vs. grant funding (planning work to this date has come from state monies). Board Chair Kathryn Coughlin made clear at the start of the session that no decision had been made and that there wouldn’t be a vote that night despite that being listed as a possibility on the meeting agenda. She also reminded her colleagues and the public that the board adopted a vision and values in 2024 that it committed to considering when making major decisions.
A point of emphasis during this meeting, as well as previous ones, is that the board is voting initially just to get the first 25% of design underway on concepts that range from limited bicycle support to advanced cycling infrastructure (the most bare bones option would simply involve repaving and limited sidewalk work). In other words, adding bike lanes or not and other changes won’t be set in stone: Design work would start and project leaders will be required to address a handful of lingering questions and concerns raised by each of the concepts laid out to date as the town conducts further research on a handful of related issues from parking availability to cycling demand and habits. A working group reviewing the options reported back to the Select Board earlier this summer and recommended by an 8-7 vote going with a hybrid approach that would include bike lanes.
“One thing we have to do is choose a concept,” Coughlin said of the board. “Because we have to give the engineering team, and the transportation group, and town administration, and DPW, and public safety direction on what it is we want to see.”
See presentation sharing during Aug. 19 Select Board meeting
During the board’s deliberation, members were able to raise issues based on their individual research. For example, Coughlin described having read again through a lengthy FAQ on the project published by the town and it got her wondering whether there could be a way for the town to adopt a concept rerouting bikes around Main Street, citing rights of way/easement issues, without losing the chance for Massachusetts Department of Transportation support and federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funding. The board further discussed the pros and cons of routing cyclists around Main Street, particularly those coming or going in a north or south direction along Rte. 27.
Coughlin and fellow member Linda Wollschlager separately shared efforts to research main street projects in other communities, including the college town of Northampton in western Massachusetts, even though it is different from Natick in many ways. Coughlin’s seeking to find out what businesses thought about the project, which is currently in one of those unpredictable-yet-predictable Eversource-inspired delays (something for Natick officials to file away whenever its project gets going). Wollschlager said depending on who you ask, businesses were for or against it. She added: “One of the things I wanted to know is countrywide are there any designs [for communities similar to Natick] like what we’re proposing, and the answer came back ‘no.'”
Morgan Griffiths, the Natick transportation/economic development planner heavily involved in the project, did point to the town of Wakefield, Mass., as a community undertaking a downtown project that looks to include sidewalk-level bike lanes and angle parking.
From here, the discussion segued into a discussion of different parking options, from parallel to angle to backing in (the latter, a hairy situation for those of us with older vehicles without backup cameras). Board member Kristen Pope noted that parking preferences can be influenced by where a person grew up and learned to drive. Fellow member Cody Jacobs raised the idea of having different parking types on opposite sides of the street to accomodate, say, bike lanes on one side.
Board members also lamented not having solid data yet on Natick’s overall parking situation, as one factor to consider with the different Main Street options is the loss or gain of parking spaces. Though Coughlin did state that building a parking garage is not an option due to the steep cost.
Addressing public concerns
Among the top concerns raised by the public has to do with the possible narrowing of Main Street and the impact that would have on traffic flow at the Rte. 27/135 intersection, statistically one of the state’s most dangerous. Narrower streets are known to slow down traffic, though as Jacobs pointed out, traffic signalization plays a big role in flow. The narrowing of the street and sidewalk bumpouts also reduce the time it takes for people to cross, improving vehicular traffic flow, Wollschlager said.
There are also questions about the true demand for commuter and recreational cycling to or through downtown, though as Pope said you need to look at least a few years out when thinking about this, and as Jacobs added, the town’s efforts to improve cycling infrastructure fits with numerous Natick planning efforts from its adoption of a Complete Streets Policy to its 2030+ Master Plan and Net Zero Action Plan.
Board member Bruce Evans noted the big differences between protected and unprotected bike lanes, and when it comes to bike lanes on Main Street, he said the town can’t take a “Field of Dreams” approach that assumes if Natick builds it, the cyclists will come, as he’s heard arguments for and against bike lanes from cyclists themselves. “Are we taking an existing traffic problem and potentially making it worse by introducing complexity… ?” he asked later during the meeting.
Wollschlager threw into the mix the rise of e-bikes as well, and how they could factor into Natick’s planning. State and local rules for different classes of e-bikes are emerging.
Not unrelated, Coughlin switched to talking to about Natick’s changing demographics over the years and what it might look like going forward based on U.S. Census, UMass, and other resources (Natick’s population is expected to grow 30% by 2050, and the 65+ age contingent is expected to grow by 50%.
“So when we think about the Main Street corridor and we think about our residents who are going to be living here, the first thing I thought of no matter what we do is we need bumpouts,” she said. “We need pedestrian bumpouts so we don’t have people trying to walk from one corner of Main Street to the other corner diagonally across that huge thing and hustling.” (Bumpouts are a traffic calming design that extends the curb line and sidewalk into the roadway.)
Building on that, Coughlin said the town needs to prioritize making its streets as safe as possible for everyone, regardless of how they get around.
Jacobs said bike lanes would seem to be one way to make things safer, whereas cyclists today either ride on the street (as they are allowed to) or sidewalks, and don’t have a separate path of their own. How Natick might design buffers between parking spaces, bike lanes, and sidewalks is something Jacobs said he’d want to see in early design work, depending on which concept the board endorses.
About the cost…
Basic repaving is estimated to cost the town $2m, while more involved options are projected to have a construction cost of $11m, entirely grant funded (though increased snow removal costs can’t be overlooked).
Board member Evans said he was “disgusted” by claims that the town’s decision making on this is being driven by available grant funding. “We are being driven by what we think Natick needs” based on input from numerous constituencies, he said.
Wollschlager said “If we thought this was the wrong thing for downtown it wouldn’t matter if it was free or if they paid us money for it. However, we do need to consider the financial cost of any of these” options, she said.
Pope said “I see this as an opportunity to do improvements that we won’t have. There’s no forecast in the next five years that we’re going to have an additional $11 million lying around” to dedicate to such a project, she said.
Jacobs said: “We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to look at grants…”
Coughlin warned that Natick has “deferred maintenance to dangerous levels—levels that are going to cost us far more in the future than if we just did the common sense thing now.”
In the end, Coughlin returned to her main considerations as the board readies to vote. “Safety, safety, safety, safety, safety,” she repeated, in commenting on the potential for the hybrid concept, acknowledging flaws would need to be addressed.
The board agreed to add an agenda item on this topic to its Sept. 2 meeting, just to possibly sort out a few things in advance of a fuller discussion at a Sept. 9 meeting to be mainly devoted to the Main Street Improvement Project and a likely vote.
We unabashedly chase grants.If you’re with or know of an organization that’s thinking creatively about awarding grants—say to support student interns covering non-profit and other news in Natick—please let us know: natickreport@gmail.com
