I sent this in a week and a half ago. Posting it here, too although it was published Sunday, March 27th, along with Judith Gabriele's bike piece.
I thank the Editorial Board for its editorial support of making Santa Fe a more
bicycle-friendly community. This is a complicated process requiring synergy in
transportation design, land use planning and zoning, and tax policy.
Case in point. Some years back, the Bicycling Coalition of New Mexico
strenuously objected to the rebuild of St. Francis Drive to three narrow lanes
in each direction rather than installing bike lanes. This rebuild was done to
increase motor vehicle level of service regardless of what effect that would
have on transportation alternatives along this critical arterial. Another case
in point. You can add "protected bike lanes" to a road like
Cerrillos, but numerous turning and crossing points serve side streets and
businesses while high speeds are posted; a bicyclist is only protected until,
as a friend once quipped, the moment of impact. Thus two critical business
corridors are bicycle-hostile.
Urban sprawl is our enemy. Many European cities can more easily adopt mass
transit and the bicycle as they have stayed compact. American cities have
meanwhile sprawled because Americans like low density development and recent
“arterial and cul-de-sac” designs for privacy. These designs rapidly create
safety and distance hardships to the point where the bicycle is not viable for
transportation. While e-bikes may change the distance factor, it is still a
hard sell.
Creating an environmentally-sustainable, bicycle friendly city takes an
enormous amount of work, and means synergistically looking at road design, land
use planning, tax policy, and enforcing safe behavior. Our bike trails need to
be well maintained and connect people to where they need to go. Distances must
be managed by intelligent land use planning. Road speeds must not be so
excessive as to create instant death to someone hit by a car. Do we really need
40-45 mph arterials in a city? Finally, citizens must be made aware, through
tax policy, that low density development means each of us has a bigger bill to
pay for the city services we take for granted.
One thing the city could do right now to show the way is declare that Canyon
Road is a Woonerf, i.e., a European design where motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists have equal rights to share space without a hierarchy. Considering
the foot traffic and narrowness of the road, it should be a no-brainer. Such a
move would demonstrate a change in paradigm in how we treat mobility in our
city. One has to start somewhere, and that's my suggestion.
More here: To Tunnel, or Not to Tunnel, That is the Question