Visit to Carmel

My wife and I just returned from a brief vacation to Carmel, IN.  Probably this is, in and of itself, an unusual statement, as Carmel is not really a vacation destination.  It's a relative unremarkable but fairly affluent northern suburb to Indianapolis, and it would probably be completely unremarkable except for two unique decisions by the city:

1) To make their stretch of abandoned-railroad-converted-into-bikeway - a rails-to-trails conversion sort of trail that is common throughout the country - a centerpiece of the town instead of the usual 2-bit amenity for recreational cyclists

2) To invest in cycling infrastructure, plus slowing down cars, such that the area around the new district is people-friendly and car-limited.

For people who have traveled to the Netherlands, this would perhaps seem rather obvious -- every town seems to take what it is has uniquely going for it -- a nice canal, an old traditional city core, a picturesque church or two -- and build around it a nicely walkable town center.   For those of us in US suburbs, things don't usually work this way.  Sure, my suburb has an old stretch of "main street USA" that was long neglected but has now been nicely uplifted, and it's a "nice" area.  It is not a "NICE!" area like Carmel, though.  What's different?  In my city, Main Street went from a lively mixed-use district, to a car-centric district, to a neglected and abandoned district, to an uplifted dining/shopping district...but throughout it had through-traffic for cars as the focus, and it still does. 

In my city, you can still drive down Main Street and park in front of the restaurant.  And what do people complain about?  You guessed it -- not enough parking spots in front of THEIR favorite destination when THEY want to go there. 

Carmel took a different tack, building a new district around the Monon Trail, and this means that what was once railroad-accessible property -- typically warehouses and low-rent buildings and the backs of strip malls and light industry shops -- is now prime real estate.  Some of the old buildings get re-purposed, but a lot gets rebuilt from scratch.

Which brings us to the point of this narrative:  why do people go to nice, walkable/bikable areas for vacation, but return to sterile suburbia with a car commute to a barren concrete city wasteland?  Why not just LIVE in an area where you would happily vacation?  That's the Carmel theme -- just live in a walkable/bikeable area -- and there are a LOT of new apartments and row-houses going up within a block or two of the trail.  Many have already been built, and many more are under construction.  At a glance, what do you see?  Attractive buildings closely fronting the narrow streets with their wider-than-usual mixed-use sidewalks and some parking spots.  What do you not see?  Acres of parking.  Yes, many of these residences do have parking, but it's typically hidden behind, and it feeds out away from the trail...again, those who've been in NL will note that pedestrian and cycling infrastructure tends to feed toward the city center, while cars tend to feed outward to outer parkways and highways.

Are vacations the same as daily life?  Certainly not, at least not for most of us.  On vacation, it's no big thing to have a valet park your car so you can easily get to the trail center, and to spend a little too much on dinners and drinks, and to wander about shopping.  But if you live close to the trail, you can walk or bike there and not need a valet...and those who do drive find that they end up parking 1/4 or 1/2 mile away and walking anyway.  Kids can play in splash pads, or play pick-up games of ping-pong at the public tables, or climb on the playground areas.  Adults can wander about, chat with friends over a beer, and even just chat with strangers.  We spent 30 minutes while waiting for our table to open up chatting with a convivial older gentlemen who makes a trail walk and talk part of his daily social activities.  He's lived in Carmel for 40 years, and so had a long-term view of the changes in the city.

Is there any "magic" in Carmel?  Not really -- it took a visionary, stubborn mayor and a decade or two of deliberate work.  Is the trail critical?  I don't think so; it's simply the grain of sand that turned into a pearl for this particular town.

What is the key?  I'm not completely sure, and maybe others who have spent more time in Carmel will offer additional insight.  I think it come down to a few simple points, though:
- It's not the brand-new high-investment buildings along 2 miles of trail, but the 250 miles of 10' mixed use paths plus some more barely-adequate side-paths along various city streets and roads. (note: I've corrected a previous misunderstanding where I thought the 250 miles included the lower-quality walks). Sure, being willing to spend public money on beautiful buildings helps attract private money for more, but spending modest dollars on 10' multi-use sidepaths is what makes life better for locals and their daily trips. No, the city didn't spend a gazillion bucks re-working every block to eliminate curb-cuts and to put in raised-crossings and 45-deg curbs at every driveway, but they DID do better than painted bike-lanes, so strollers, kids, and bikes all have a few feet and a curb to help protect from the cars.

- It's not the cycling path, but the lack of cars along the trail that creates broad pedestrian plazas of various sizes.  People like being in areas with other people, and that means safe, interesting, convenient sorts of spots.  CreateStreets has an excellent analysis of plazas, and along the Monon you find big ones (like the Palladium square that's used for the weekly farmer's market), low-rent ones (like gravel-lot beer gardens), little public parks and splash-pads tucked in next to 4-story mixed use buildings, and sidewalk cafes with other venues and the trail as people-watching backdrops.  

- A little bit slower pace for cars, with roundabouts everywhere.  Really, the roundabouts still favor cars, as they keep most drivers from having to stop most of the time, and they are fairly flat and fast.  In my humble opinion, far too many are the two-lane variety, which adds hazard for drivers, peds, and cyclists, and while the ped/cycle crossings are usually divorced from the circle and are raised they are a little too close compared to the NL best-practice version with a couple of car-lengths to enable drivers to context-switch from auto-conflicts to ped/cycle-conflicts.  But again, it's "good enough", and mostly car traffic is not terribly fast. 

``````

The result is a pleasant, quiet, and attractive area along the trail without much traffic.  Cross-streets certainly have cars, and with a dense mix of pedestrians, bikes, and cars it's not completely comfortable for anybody, but the key point is the cars go SLOWLY....every sidewalk crossing along the trail is raised, so it's like having speed-bumps all over.  Slow cars are quiet cars, so those dining or walking about don't hear the common roar of tires and wind-noise and loud exhaust.  Interestingly, the side-streets perpendicular to the trail, with a traffic lane and side-parking, are a lot more like the Main Street in my city -- still accessible by car, but not really a major through-traffic corridor -- while also feeding pedestrians and cyclists into the trail district.

Do I have hope that my city can do this?  Let's just say I have a fraught relationship with hope these days...but I am confident that my city, and many suburbs, COULD similarly start the move away from car-centric living.  It's not at all impossible, and really it's just a decision away.  I think perhaps that is Carmel's best testimony, that a cycling/walking town CAN exist in small-town USA, as a practical working example.  Clearly Carmel is a work-in-progress, with a long ways yet to go, but it's quietly becoming a shining example of what is possible.