Cody Kennedy: The numbers are in: Fourth and Fifth Streets are less safe.

In just four months since the redesign, we’ve seen a sharp increase in bike crashes, with three of six post-redesign incidents involving cyclists, one directly tied to the new design. Yet the city’s report paints the project as a success, citing reduced speeds and a 3.4 percent increase in downtown visitation.

And herein lies the problem with relying solely on selective data. While the numbers may look good in isolation, they don’t tell the full story of how this redesign has impacted safety, accessibility and the broader downtown economy.

That said, I appreciate the effort that went into compiling this data, as it reflects the city staff’s commitment to evaluating such a significant initiative. However, there are critical gaps in this analysis that need to be addressed to truly assess the redesign’s success, or lack thereof.

First, while slower speeds are highlighted as a positive outcome, they were achieved through a design that has frustrated drivers and created more congestion. Frustration leads to higher conflict rates, which can ultimately negate any safety gains from reduced speeds.

As I’ve noted in the past, traditional traffic-calming measures such as better signal timing, targeted traffic enforcement and raised crosswalks that act as speed bumps could achieve similar results without the same level of disruption to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

The report leans heavily on Placer AI data, which uses anonymized mobile-device data to estimate foot traffic. While this technology can track general-visitation trends, it does not account for population growth in Grand Junction, which has increased in recent years. When adjusted to reflect this population growth, the 3.4 percent increase in downtown visits becomes far less meaningful.

While the geofence used for the data excludes the Ute Avenue and Pitkin Avenue corridor, it does extend about half a block south of Colorado Avenue, meaning it likely includes some impact from the Homeward Bound Resource Center. From January to October 2024 alone, the resource center facilitated the distribution of over 100,000 pounds of food to more than 10,000 households.

This commendable work undoubtedly draws people downtown, but it also inflates visitation numbers without reflecting increased economic activity for businesses. Without including sales-tax revenue or feedback from downtown businesses, the report cannot provide a full picture of the redesign’s economic impact.

Sales-tax data, which would provide a far more accurate measure of downtown economic activity, was briefly discussed in the report but deemed “inconclusive” because there was only one month of data. Excluding this data, representing 25 percent of the pilot project timeline, leaves a significant gap in understanding whether the redesign has helped or hurt businesses.

The crash data also requires a closer inspection. In just four months, bike crashes have spiked, with cyclists involved in 50 percent of post-redesign crashes. One of these crashes was directly tied to the design itself. This sharp rise in bike-related incidents, combined with the frustration expressed by motorists, shows the redesign has not balanced the needs of all road users. And the continued reports of near-miss accidents aren’t included or even mentioned in the report.

Both police and fire unions have pointed out critical flaws in the design, beyond just the inadequate lane width. The current layout does not provide space for cars to yield to emergency vehicles or for fire trucks and ambulances to maneuver around vehicles when drivers freeze up, as they often do when overwhelmed by lights and sirens behind them.

Additionally, despite the report’s note about slightly wider roadways, the design still fails to allow fire trucks and ambulances to navigate corners effectively, creating further safety hazards.

While the short timeline for data collection is a limitation, I believe we have gathered enough information and community feedback to warrant a decision to return Fourth and Fifth streets to their original design. At the same time, we should carefully consider adding bike lanes to other locations, such as Third or Sixth streets, where they can be safely integrated without disrupting critical road functions or creating safety risks for other users.

The “moving forward” portion of the staff report is also revealing. Instead of considering course corrections, such as moving the bike lanes to another street or returning Fourth and Fifth to their original configuration, it only focuses on keeping the bike lanes where they are. This rigid approach ignores legitimate concerns raised by residents, businesses, and even first responders.

My “Moving Forward” approach…

Sometimes, plans don’t work out, and that’s OK. What’s important is the ability to admit when a course correction is needed and make adjustments based on what we’ve learned. In this case, it may mean going back to the original design rather than trying to justify a bike-centric redesign that has proven to be less safe and a disservice to the broader  community.

While data is an important part of evaluating any project, it must be collected and analyzed in a way that provides a clear, objective view of its impacts, not just in a way that supports a predetermined position. If we are truly committed to doing what’s best for Grand Junction, we need to ensure the data we rely on is comprehensive, transparent, and reflective of the full range of community experiences. Only then can we make decisions that truly serve our community.

Cody Kennedy
Grand Junction City Council District A

To read the entire report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GMLsHcdZ9XrQWohiAv23wFy4MRf7wrgp/view?usp=sharing