Biking in the Cape: Some Lessons and Ideas

Today, my family and I enjoyed a long bike ride through Cape Cod, Massachusetts. This ride was made possible by a national program called Rails to Trails. The program is pretty self-explanatory: previous rail lines are converted into bike and/or multi use trails. It is great program that has led to the completion of many fantastic trails across the nation.

The Cape Cod Rail Trail was very well designed. All of the road crossing points were well constructed, making both the trail and the road crossings easy to traverse for both cycles and motor vehicles. Part of the reason the crossings were so functional was due to the fact that all the at-grade crossings involved only two-lane of one lane roads. All the wider roads had grade separated crossings (usually tunnels, with the occasional overpass). These crossings helped to illustrate a larger point of cycling: people will be far more comfortable cycling if there are grade separated crossings. Yes, this point has been made, and yes they are expensive, but they go a VERY long way towards making life easier for both bike riders/pedestrians and drivers.

So who was using this trail? Since Cape Cod is primarily a tourist destination, I expected to see mostly recreational riders. Predictably, after traversing this trail for its entire length over a period of 7 hours, I saw very few people on the trail who seemed to be locals. This was understandable, considering the wealth of the residents of Cape Cod. But then, I thought about all the service workers in the towns on the Cape; the children who attended the local schools; the people who lived a short, bikable drive away from their place of work: why were these people not present on the trail?

Lack of connectivity is the answer.

Since the trail was built primary for recreational purposes, the planners made very little provisions for commuters. The trail was required to follow the rail right-of-way, which means it doesn't necessarily go close to many of the major towns. In fact, there is only one major town that it passes through. In this town, the whole area around the trail is filled with parks and businesses that cater to bikers. Why can't the other towns in the area have this?

I envision a future where the Cape Cod Rail Trail is the spine of a larger, regional network. There would spurs that would go to every nearby town and every nearby school, along with every nearby major employment center. All of these spurs would have way-finding signs from the main trail. Currently, the majority of the Cape (along with the majority of the USA) is very auto oriented, with little to no commuter bike infrastructure. The development of the peninsula is not necessarily suburban, but it is sprawling and spread out in nature.


My main point is this: having long, recreational trails are beneficial to large portions of the population, but they do little to reduce intra-urban journeys. This type of trip (within an urban area, and usually a short distance, no more than 2-8 miles) is by far the most common trip type in America; it is also the easiest type of car trip to replace with a bicycle.

If we really want to reduce traffic, reduce emissions, reduce auto fatalities and reduce obesity, we MUST focus on the low hanging fruit. In this situation, the low hanging fruit is the potential to replace short car trips with other modes, such as bikes.

If we can build great recreational trails, we can also build quality commuter networks. It's time to stop wasting money on subsidies for car trips that are wasteful and unnecessary.

It's time for a transportation revolution.

Cyclivia in Tucson: The Posibilities for the Future

This past weekend, Tucson had its first cyclovia event.


On Sunday, from 10 AM until 2 PM, four sections of different streets were closed off to automobile traffic, freeing the streets for non-motorized activities for miles. This page has more information, and this blog has a good write up of the event.

The purpose of a cyclovia is to allow all uses other than automobiles on the streets. The problem with doing this in Tucson is the quality of the pavement. Most sections of the route were not smooth enough to allow for skateboarding, long-boarding, roller blading and other activities that require smooth pavement. This is unfortunate because some members of the community really enjoy these activities and would love to have an entire street to participate.

Overall though, it is hard for me to be pessimistic about this event. There were a lot of people out participating and interacting with the built environment in a more sustainable way. When people move more slowly through a place, they can interact with it better. They can see how bad of condition the streets are in and contact the city, demanding improvement. They can find neat restaurants and cafes they never previously noticed.

The best thing about cyclovia is taking street space away from cars. Though it was only for 4 hours on one day of the year, it represented an opportunity to take back the streets. For too many years, American transportation policy has dictated that cars are the only way to get around efficiently.

This is simply not true. Plenty of places in America are easily accessible by foot, bike or transit.

For the places that are not yet accessible,efficient land use policy can help to change this unfortunate reality.



It is also telling that much of this cyclovia route will soon be home to the route of Tucson's first modern streetcar. Construction will begin this fall (Oct./Nov. 2010), and according to project managers, the project will be complete in about 15 months. This means that next year on April 18th, the cyclovia route will look very different.

In five years, the route will probably be very different as well. Construction on the streetcar will have been completed for a long time. Development will probably be occurring along the route, and the recession will hopefully be far over.

However, the real question should be what will the first Tucson cyclovia route look like in ten years? Only time, and progressive planning policy, will tell.

What Methods Can We Use to Prevent People from Buying a Car in the First Place? 1. Carsharing

I would like to start this post with a disclaimer: I am not an anti-car person, and I never will be.

Motor vehicles are amazing inventions. They increase mobility for the users and allow owners of cars to go wherever they want whenever they want.

However, there are a few drawbacks to a car oriented society: not everyone can afford one because they are expensive to maintain. Also, since our entire build world has become so motor vehicle centric, not owning a car has become a major disadvantage. Our roads are overcrowded, so how can we prevent people from needing to buy a car?

I say "need" because many times, cars are not bought on a "want" basis. Though many times they are, plenty of people buy cars based on "need".

People buy cars if their transportation needs are not adequately met by transit, walking, biking or car sharing. Most of America fits into this category, so it makes sense that most Americans own cars.

Why do I want people not to buy cars?

Well, this is how it usually goes: once someone buys a car, all they use is a car. They no longer consider using buses, bikes or walking because a car is such a large investment. It doesn't make sense for someone to make a large investment for something they will use occasionally. Also, our modern build world reinforces high intensity vehicle usage. When someone buys a car, they reinforce this entire cyclical system.


Though the solution to this problem is multifaceted, I see car sharing as the most important solution to this problem.

I would like to use my own personal life as an example.

I do not own a car. Though I had one when I attended high school in Albuquerque, my brother now uses that car so I have no car out here in Tucson. I have no problem with not owning a car. I enjoy biking to school most days because it stimulates my mind and gives me exercise. On the days when I do not feel like biking (sick, raining, windy, lazy, etc) a bus route passes very close to my house and takes me directly to campus. This bus route is pretty good, as it comes every half hour on weekdays from 5 AM to 10 PM. Since most of my time is either spent on campus or at home, the bus and bike connections work very well for my commute.

But what about everything outside of my daily commute?

Most American driving miles are no longer the simple commute to and from work or school. People need to get to baseball practice, the mall, Baskin Robbins, the movie theater, concert and a billion other locations and events. In most cities, since everything is so spread, you sometimes truly do NEED a car to get to many of these locations.

For example, I need to buy groceries once a week. I prefer going to Trader Joes, which is too far to bike to and inaccessible by bus. Luckily, I have some awesome roommates who let me borrow their car once a week for this journey.

Alas, most people do not have my awesome roommate situation. It is at this point when most people decide that they must own a car. It is these kind of journeys that need to be tackled in order to reduce car purchases. Car sharing is the answer.

How does car sharing work? The most popular car sharing program in the nation, ZipCar, works like this: cars are distributed in a given area. People in this given area sign up for a membership. When members want to use a car, they get on the Internet (or iPhone), find the closest one, scan the car with key less entry, and go for as long as they want. The longer they go, the most they have to pay so there are incentives for people to bring the cars back ASAP.

Now, if there was a bank of these cars in my neighborhood, I would totally sign up. I would not be the only one, as my neighborhood is filled with lower income car free dwellers. The problem is, Zipcar is still a for-profit company. They will only expand into areas where profit margins are high and risk is low. Central Tucson is probably not high on their expansion list.

This is why Ray LaHood and livability proponents need to start doing more work to get local car sharing programs jump started. I am so happy to see the federal DOT give so much more credit to bikes, pedestrians and transit, but these solutions will only go so far. Car sharing should also be a big part of their push for livability.

Though car sharing still involves cars (which I am not a huge fan of) they are an essential part of any solution in society that has only been building car based for at least 70 years. Honestly, they are the most realistic solution to getting cars off the road. Just look at this infographic, and this article (both from FastCompany), for proof.

Let's stop the cycle of people needing to buy cars; add car sharing to a growing list of great solutions.

The Extreme Importance of Zoning Policy

The cities we have created today are relatively unsustainable. By unsustainable, I mean a place that can not easily survive for a long period of time. The primary reason behind this is zoning policy.

There are two major issues with current zoning policy:
1) Subsidizing Sprawl: We continue to pour money into developments that make our city weaker instead of stronger.

We can even look at this kind of development from a purely economic standpoint: In the long run, it is far more expensive to construct and maintain new infrastructure than it is develop areas that already have infrastructure. For this reason, local and national government should give major tax breaks to infill development, opposing to greenfield sprawl. In places where infrastructure exists, other services (such as shopping, workplaces, schools, etc.) are likely to exist as well. This not only creates lower longer-term prices for taxpayers, but it also encourages and stimulates walkable development. As many studies have shown (the most recent one from the NRDC), walkable areas retain value much better than non-walkable areas do.

2) Single Use Automobile Dependent Zoning Policy: Most new development in the United States continues to be single use and car dependent. This kind of development is a major reason why the obesity rates in the United States have skyrocketed. Creating areas and communities where people do not have the option of walking, biking or using public transportation is detrimental to the health of this country.

America prides itself on the freedom and independence car ownership provides, but car ownership should not be (and is not) a necessity for everyone. In my opinion, freedom means building areas where people have the freedom to use any transportation option they want.

Federal and local governments MUST revise zoning policies that encourage single use car dependent developments. Continuing to build these spaces will just lead to more pollution and congestion on local roads, and the eventual collapse of local transportation systems. Only so many lanes can be added to a road; eventually, the right of way ends.


Let's Review:

We must fight to end tax subsidies for sprawl.

We must subsidize infill development instead.

Car dependent development weakens our country.

Freedom means transportation options, not automobile dependency.

Revising zoning policy is crucial to the future of this country.


In my next post, I will address a balanced solution for future suburban growth that embraces the tenets of progressive urban policy.