If you would like to see more Federal money spent on local projects to promote and make safer more bicycling and walking, call your Congressional Representative and ask him or her to be a co-sponsor on H.R. 4722, the Active Community Transportation Act. It is important to make the call this week, in support of the National Bike Summit.

Perhaps it is ironic that I follow an angry post about generationally-irresponsible recovery spending with a call to borrow more money against the future, but there is a big difference between investing to leave something for the next generation vs spending money to help the current generation cover the mistakes of the present.

The Active Community Transportation Act would make grant money available to communities for investments in infrastructure that promote walking and biking.

I want to keep this post positive, but I cannot ignore the sense that many people feel biking and walking are recreational activities and should therefore be lower priority. But in fact, because the impact of small investments here can be so large, they should be a higher priority.

The types of projects grant money like this could support could include components as small as improved crosswalks. For about $10,000, we could install a solar-powered pushbutton-activated flashing light and repaint a crosswalk so that dozens of kids and their parents would feel safe walking to school. We could deploy several of these across a busy, wide stretch of road that serves to divide part of our community and effectively "knit" the town together and reduce reliance on car trips. We could make it easier for people to choose to ride the commuter rail and walk to church by bringing the focus down to the sidewalks and streets and investing is small things that pull our communities together.

The benefits are not just aesthetic. We have a childhood obesity epidemic to combat. We have a national health crisis that, regardless of what insurance companies may or may not be doing, is driving the cost of health care higher and higher. We have recurring cycles of foreign oil dependency and occasional bouts of awareness with global warming, carbon emissions, and general sustainability. Do more than buy a Prius. Thank about ways to change the way we live to be more sustainable and more responsible to the future and then ask what stands in the way?

Active Transportation is a path through the obstacles. It's a part of the solution that, unlike many government projects, is more efficient and has "externality benefits" rather than costs.

It's efficient because this kind of grant program encourages community-based action. Our local advisory committee would gather information, talk to our neighbors, participate in the grant application process and assist in project managing and monitoring the implementation. The overall grants will be designed to support networks of improvements costing $5 to 15 million each.

"Externality benefits" are the intangible things like improving the strength of a community. It would be impossible to measure the economic impact on house prices down to such a micro level, but I would bet that over time, the increase in walking and perception of safety across a divisive roadway would translate into higher home values. I know we moved from one house because the street was busy and didn't make an offer an another because it was "on the other side" of the road that we'd have to cross to get to school. Not everyone will share these valuations...but when small projects like these are happening all over the country, the sum effect has to be a net gain.

Will there be boondoggles and "bike paths to nowhwere?" Perhaps. But at least then we can start talking about the best way to do things. How many bike paths could have been built with the money that was used to make it possible for me to drive to the airport in 30 minutes instead of 45? I'm guessing a few hundred thousand.

This week marked the 1-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the stimulus bill that pumped $787 billion into the U.S. Economy to avert financial catastrophe and a 2nd Great Depression. We can debate all day about could have, should have, would haves with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but I do believe, on balance, the actions taken by the administration over the past year probably did avert disaster. But...

Today I saw this quote from Governor Patrick:

“When you talk about what you do for your son, that's what this is all about.”

Governor Deval Patrick, to Derek Lilly, a father of five, who had been describing what it feels like to be a role model for his son now that he has a job thanks to a Stimulus-funded job development program at Boston ABCD.

How can anyone defend the bailout of greedy bankers and free market enthusiasts as something we did for our kids? We did it because the cost of all other alternatives was far worse. We borrowed the future of the next generation to pay off the failures of the present and ensure that angry mobs of unemployed people didn't burn down the Capital.

What does the future look like? I believe the next generation will find a way. As someone who is in Generation X, in my early 40s, I worry not so much that people like me and younger will simply suffer under the burden of higher taxes, long-term high unemployment rates, and increasingly diminished opportunities that result from paying off or not paying off this huge debt...I worry about what future bad choices we'll be asked to make.

We are setting the stage for a generational war to replace the so-called cultural war. Instead of Red and Blue states, we will have Green and Gray states. We will see policy choices that increasingly "pay back" the current leadership generation for their abdication of stewardship. We will see a world where policy makers don't have any sympathy for the "lazy" 70-year old who wants to retire or expects to receive a pension. Out of necessity, younger people will take charge of this mess they have inherited with solutions from their own perspective that is shaped by this world that is unfolding over the next decade.

I'm not saying young people are or will be heartless or seek to actively punish anyone. But the world of choices we are shaping will force harder and harder decisions that will hurt those who do not seek and maintain power.

There is already anger in this country and there should be more. We averted disaster. Great. But don't tell me this benefits my kids. Tell me what we are going to do to ensure a future worthy of our stewardship. Tell me what sacrifices we are going to make now and then have the guts to lead on those issues.

The popular understanding of the origin of street design in Boston goes back to the original wisdom of cows pastured on the common and commuting home to farms. Although this is more folklore than fact, it does reflect the liklihood that streets were developed piecemeal in response to short-term needs and not as a part of an organized plan.

Such is always the case, unless a community has a blank canvas upon which to write...and millions of dollars of funding...and popular support for centralized design and planning of an urban utopia. Expect that confluence of opportunity sometime in the next century. In the meantime, improvements are opportunistic: a bike lane here, an updated intersection there...a new development bringing potentially more problems but at least some cash to manage solutions. When those micro-opportunties happen...advocates need to be ready to propose improvements, but these improvements should be seen NOT as accomodations for interest groups, but as opportunities to develop "complete streets" - recognizing that...

The streets of our cities and towns are an important part of the livability of our communities. They ought to be for everyone, whether young or old, motorist or bicyclist, walker or wheelchair user, bus rider or shopkeeper. But too many of our streets are designed only for speeding cars, or worse, creeping traffic jams.--National Complete Streets Coalition

Increasingly, communities are adopting policies to incorporate this new kind of paradigm. Even as they do so, however, they are not immune to the misunderstandings of those who view these measures as expensive luxuries that detract from "fixing potholes." What opponents fail to realize is that today's potholes were yesterday's bogs and other "cow obstacles."

Complete Streets is not about a master plan to impose a new design on cities, but an effort to develop a shared use strategy that recognizes how our needs are changing. We need safer ways for active transportation to be supported in our communities. Partly, it is "aspirational"--we do want to encourage more walking and biking--but successful change looks for real needs: where are people currently trying to walk and bike? It can never be about "build it and they will come," it has to be "thank goodness they finally did something about that bridge!"

Adopting a Complete Streets strategy means coming together as a community to adopt a policy that commits to a vision of the future where the needs of all users are considered. It provides a reference point for "why do we want to do this?" and "why are we doing this?" so that changes/improvements are not seen as accommodations or concessions to appease a minority of outlier users, but as necessary steps towards ensuring a better future for all.

To encourage more people to bike, ask women what they want. And make it safe for kids to ride their bikes to school. These approaches would dramatically increase the utilization of cycling as a mainstream activity.

According to an article in the October Scientific American, women are an "indicator species" for bike-friendly cities. Those of us who bike frequently are familiar with the lycra-clad warrior mindset and the urban bike messenger culture, but we are also familiar with comments like "I'm surprised your wife 'lets' you ride to work." We have learned to temper our tales of close calls and have adopted an extremely defensive approach to bike commuting--out of a necessity for survival.

The Scientific American story reviews some of the first bike infrastructure studies done in the US and concludes that when women's concerns about safety and utility are addressed, cycling adoption increases. On-street bike lanes do not adequately address safety concerns because they do not separate bike from automobile traffic. Cyclists must still negotiate tricky intersections to get anywhere useful. And most bike paths are constructed in useless park areas--supporting the idea of cycling as a limited recreational activity, but not helping anyone get a bag of groceries home.

The studies will raise some gender bias eyebrows, but in the aggregate, we should acknowledge that gender roles do still exist and if we want to see more bikes on the road, we should ask what women want.

Kids don't need much encouragement to ride bikes, but their parents need to know they will be safe. The Safe Routes to Schools program has been very successful not only at encouraging kids and parents to walk to school, but has also increased the comfort level of parents around allowing their kids to ride their bikes to school. Among other activities, SRTS and MassBike conduct bike safety workshops at schools (and also bike commuter workshops for adults) and promote inprovements to bike infrastructure around schools.

We are a long way from what has become routine in the Netherlands where nearly every child bikes to school, but if you notice in the photos of kids and parents, you will not find them competing with cars, but traveling their own separate bikeways. I have posted this video before, but I just love it:

Finally, for those who question, why bother? Here is a clip from a Safe Routes to Schools presentation here in Westwood that illustrates how the rates of obesity have grown over the past 24 years.

Integrating bike transportation into our daily lives would help raise our overall level of activity and help us adopt healthier lifestyles. But to work, it needs to be practical and safe--something people choose to do not as a separate chore like going to the gym to work out and lose some weight, but as a preference to driving. We the lycra-clad road warriors are on the margins...advocates and planners should look to the mainstream needs of women and children for clues to achieve truly radical change.

According to land use strategist Chris Leinberger, speaking at the Walk21 conference in New York City yesterday and reported on StreetsBlog:

If the American Dream of the Baby Boomers was all about being able to have a car and a house in suburbia, the new American Dream is having the choice between living in drivable suburban places and walkable urban ones.

This summer, CEOs for Cities released a study showing how the walkability of a neighborhood increased the value of homes in that neighborhood. In Charlotte, NC:

Controlling for all other factors including size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, age, neighborhood income levels, distance from the Central Business District and access to jobs, “if you were to pick up that house in Ashley Park, and place it in more walkable Wilmore, it would increase in value by $34,000 or 12 percent,” Cortright said.

But it is not an "either/or" challenge. Some important distinctions:

• According to Leinberger, "About the the same number of people want to live in a pedestrian-friendly environment as those who want to live in a drivable suburban one..." In other words, there are always many factors at play in the personal preferences of home buyers, but desire for walkability is playing an increasing role. It is not necessary that everyone be walking...but the trend appears to favor walking which is beginning to translate into measurable economic value.
• Most of the discussion so far has been about urban vs suburban--a distinction I find stereotypical and non-applicable in my New England town. Although we are only a dozen miles from the center of Boston, we have two "villages" separated by relatively rural spaces. It's not quite "farmland," but the town has set aside conservation land in a community that has evolved over several hundred years--limiting the amount of cul-de-sac sprawl. Getting across town on foot is currently impractical but within these villages, many amenities are accessible on foot. There is a great opportunity here.

We all know the potential advantages of living in an urban village, but most of us in towns and suburbs have weighed those advantages against much higher disadvantages which include the following perceptions:

• urban schools are unsafe and less integrated into the community
• urban living is more expensive
• parking is a nightmare and cars are still a necessity
• personal safety is a concern
• "anonymnity" is less desirable as we "settle down"
• most people still want "space"

I'm just listing those perceptions to illustrate, not to start a debate. Most people like where they live and it is an arrogant and presumptive mission to tell them they should change their attitudes. Instead, we should focus on the opportunities to get the best of both worlds.

We can transform our suburban towns into walkable communities, retaining the strengths and advantages of already desirable communities. When more residents can walk to amenities like shops, parks, schools and small local restaurants, the economic viability of these highly localized services will be strengthened. It does not mean "no more trips to WalMart," but perhaps a few more customers per week at Cafe Diva or Islington House of Pizza will prompt them to stay open longer or be able to hire another person. Perhaps the foot traffic to these places will result in a new customer walking into the "Ski Shop" or choosing to drop off dry cleaning at the Crown Cleaners instead of using a chain store. As activity increases, perhaps a new business will open...

Over time, one new customer at a time, we grow. While we grow, our children become healthier as they walk to school and our playgrounds, spending less time in front of video games and more time outdoors. We see our neighbors more often and the strength of our community grows. Isolated houses sit on the market for months while starter homes on 10,000 sf lots get multiple offers. It all feeds together into an economic and social revitalization that begins, literally, with a few steps...

Today is International Walk to School Day--but not for some communities where walking and biking have been banned. Two recent news stories are discouraging on many levels, but do not represent the norm as more and more communities are, in fact, adopting alternatives to driving.

• In Saratoga Springs, NY, a woman and her 12-year old son are defying school officials who, on the day before school started, advised all parents that "walking and biking to school would not be tolerated."
• In Marblehead, MA, the town's participation in today's event was cancelled while the school works out "issues related to program administration, safety, and liability."

These stories are "easy targets," for walkability advocates and that is my first complaint. The newspaper coverage of the New York story in particular follows the pattern that has become so typical of print-based media's clumsy attempt to remain relevant in an online world. Controversy-baiting stories leave little room for reasonable discourse as dozens of intemperate commentors react to the story that has set up the town for criticism without providing adequate context to explain why presumably reasonable adults in the community made decisions and now find themselves on the online hot seat. Online media (including this post of mine, to some extent) jump on the bandwagon as the Sarasota Springs story makes it to the Huffington Post, shows up in my LinkedIn Groups, and will undoubtably be a feature item in the many Pedestrian and Bike update email newsletters to which I subscribe.

Maybe the folks in Saratoga Springs ARE idiots, but I suspect there is much more to the story...the policy has been in place since 1994. The parents and administrators are probably focused on 100 other issues and it is unfair-based on the limited information reported-to leap to conspiracy and anti-progressive theories. But it is more fun to do that and it sells papers and generates online traffic. Meanwhile, the parents and community members probably feel angry and misunderstood, but dare not venture into the online argument of anonymous people who know nothing and judge everything.

In Marblehead, the local newspaper, the Marblehead Reporter, does a better job of providing context. Parents, administrators, and school officials are not characterized as opposing walking, but it seems the promotional effort "got ahead of itself." The town had recently experienced a tragedy when a high school sophmore was hit and killed by a motorist...then, a "Wellness Committee" coincidentally launched a promotion of Walk to School Wednesdays. School Board Chairman Dick Nohelty said that the program was not passed through the proper channels before launching.

The Marblehead story is a cautionary tale for walkability advocates about the importance of inclusion and consensus. These ideas--promoting walking and bike-riding--are not self-evident truths or causes "against" anyone. In fact Marblehead, like my town of Westwood, is fully signed-up for the Safe Routes to Schools program. School Superintendent Paul Dulac noted that he'd like to see that program "more integrated" before a walking campaign takes place.

It should not be controversial to organize a walk to school or choose to ride a bike. But anything involving the safety of children is an extremely touchy issue that, when it makes people uncomfortable for whatever reason, will prompt conservative reactions. I'm learning for our own committee, it is easy to make mistakes and to not include the right person, talk to people the right way, promote an idea prematurely, etc.--but I think it can be managed by maintaining a positive attitude and accepting criticism as a learning process. We can't lose sight of our overall goals as we navigate the details.

Update: a torrential downpour here has cancelled today's walk...so perhaps next week, I'll report on how this went.

I caught a glimpse of the network news tonight, where an Earth Day inspired discussion was highlighting both "sides" of the question of whether America could Afford to Go Green. On one side, business leaders and environmetalists are getting down to business to make something happen at the Fortune Brainstorm: Green event. On the other side, a dour spoilsport from the American Enterprise Institute cautioned that a recession was a bad time to spend money on something like this.

Watch this Frontline episode below (OK, it is 2 hours, but make it fullscreen and sit back for a comprehensive perspective on how growth and development built up an environmental debt our children will have to pay.)

Read more »

There is a great article in the Globe today about the Charles River Wheelmen and their Saturday Morning Fitness Ride in Needham. The weekly ride has proceeded uninterrupted for 617 weekends, including a few during blizzard conditions.

Read more »

On a beautiful fall day in New England, who would want to drive a car to work? For some time, I've been meaning to carry a camera along my bike ride to work and take some photos. Last Friday, I got that chance.

My trip begins on Gay Street in Westwood--a wide, tree-lined street with farm/mansions at one end and houses like mine at the other. Usually, there is a line of cars up the hill from the stoplight, but on this day, I left a bit later and found no traffic. I was unable to snap a photo of the interminable bridge construction on Washington Street crossing route 128...but perhaps, before my kids start college, I will be able to ride my bike across a new, smooth bridge instead of dodging potholes and racing cars on the currently 2-lane bridge into Dedham.

I take Washington Street through Precinct 1 in Dedham, to Dedham Square.

After the square comes the circle--a terrible idea where Washington Street meets Route 1, resulting in a mess of concrete and asphalt that divides Precinct 1 and Dedham Square from East Dedham. Often, I avoid the circle by taking East Street, but that's under construction too, so today, I braved the circle and charged on through and headed up Washington St past the former Dedham Mall.

Washington Street is a wide, 4-lane road that also serves a number of busses that make their way from the former Dedham Mall into the Boston neighborhoods of West Roxbury and Roslindale. In the moning, the traffic is not bad and although trucks and buses can sometimes come a little close for comfort, my bigger concern is dodging the ruts and potholes.

I always get caught at at least one light; this time, I'm left to look up the last stretch to Bellevue Hill and the West Roxbury Parkway/Eneking Parkway. I used to take the parkway because it is a nicer ride through Brookline, but Washington Street remains the most direct and efficient route, so I usually stick with that.

From the top of the hill, on a clear day, I can see all the way down into the city, from the clock tower at Forest Hills station on to the downtown skyline. The downhill ride is fast--sometimes 25mph or more. Coming home, this becomes a more leisurely ride, allowing ample time to experience the full ambiance of the housing projects along the way...

Forest Hills station is another cycling dilemma, not suitable for leisurely photo projects. The buses I have been competing with all down Washington Street converge on the station. But, after navigating through the maze of buses, taxis, and pedestrians, I cross the street and begin cycling down the southwest corridor multi-use path. The path take me through Jamaica Plain. The southwest corridor is a good idea...and most of the path is a great bike ride. But it can be challenging to cross certain streets. Some sections of pavement, especially around Green Street station, are so bad that most experienced cyclists opt for the road instead of the path.

The road also makes it easier to cross at Jackson Square. Jackson Square is the T stop abutting the Heath-Bromley projects. Some of these areas...I hear about them later on the news as crime scenes. But I've never felt unsafe riding through Roslindale and JP. On a bike, the biggest danger is your own lack of attention...then road/street hazards...then cars...then, maybe pedestrians.

The southwest corridar park takes me all the way to Ruggles station and the Northeastern campus.

As I ride up Columbus in the morning, I'm shielded from the bright sun by the campus buildings, then I cross Mass. Ave into the Back Bay on Columbus Ave.

I work my way through the South End via Warren Street and cut through on Waltham St to the "South of Harrison" artist district...past a big bus garage...until I encounter a highway mess.

The most difficult part of my ride is getting from the South End to Southie. It's not a long ride, but I need to go up this 4-lane road to a left turn under the I-93 overpass and along roads under the highway until I can cut over to Southie on either the 4th St or Broadway Bridge. The problem here is that these roads are all ramps and feeders and not really suitable for bikes. I've tried other routes, but there is always a trade off and just too many on/off ramps in this part of town to avoid. I was shocked to see a woman running a baby carriage across this intersection, againt the light that I was afraid to cross against...insanity.

After crossing into South Boston, the final leg of my ride is up the Harbor walk along Fort Point channel, next to the Gillette Factory. Each morning I get an awesome view of downtown lit up by the rising sun and constantly changing as new construction projects alter the Boston skyline on a daily basis.

This ride takes about 50-60 minutes. I could probably do it faster, but I've learned that is the speed I can do without breaking too much of a sweat so I can still go into work without grossing everyone out. I hope.