10th Anniversary Post: One Way or Two?

 

Coe Road NE is two-way as of March 2025

Cedar Rapids undertook a number of ambitious street initiatives in the 2010s, including adding bike lanes and converting signalized intersections to four-way stops. Perhaps the most ambitious was converting most of our one-way streets back to two-way. This undid efforts from the late 1950s through the 1960s, intended to relieve traffic congestion. As in most places where this had been undertaken, urban neighborhoods wound up paying the price in lost property value and increased danger, while suburbanites found they didn't really want to go downtown that much anyway.

Downtown on a rainy January day in 2013

Conversions came recommended by urbanists, based in part on the experience of cities like Savannah, Georgia, which saw a dramatic recovery along East Broad Street once it had been reconverted (Speck 2012: 179-180). Along with Jeff Speck, who consulted with the City of Cedar Rapids on urbanist projects throughout the decade, I quoted Seattle-based David Sucher, author of City Comforts: If one's goal is to move as many cars as possible through a neighborhood, the couplet [of one-way streets] works well. But if the goal is to create comfortable shopping districts, make streets two-way (2003: 86). If the impacts on commercial districts are bad, imagine what one-way streets do to residential neighborhoods, whose residents find themselves living on a speedway meant for others, on which they can only approach their homes from one direction.

3rd Avenue SE in the one-way era, July 2014

Ten years ago, the city stated the following goals for the initiative:

1. make the streets accessible and easier to navigate
2. improve opportunities to walk or bike
3. increase visibility of downtown businesses
4. slow traffic

I added my own measurable outcome--The conversion will be a success if it facilitates transformation of the city center into a 24-hour downtown, with a successful commercial enterprises, permanent residents and cultural attractions all contributing to a vibrant place--which seems in retrospect to be quite the high if desirable bar. I blame my hot-headed youth. It's safe to say that hasn't happened, nor have the three most prominent opposing views come to pass (traffic congestion, traffic crashes, mass confusion).

3rd Avenue SE conversion in process, October 2019

By this point, most of our one-way streets have been reconverted, the major exceptions being 15th and 16th Avenues SW, and 3rd and L Streets SW.  13th Street/College Drive/Oakland Road is still one-way between 2nd Avenue SW and H Avenue NE, and a few one-way blocks remain here and there on other streets as well, but our one-way street mileage today is a tiny percentage of what it was in 2010.

2nd Avenue SW is now two-way, L Street is still one-way
(Google Earth screenshot)

Measuring the impact of all these changes is tricky, partly because I have some but not very much data, and partly because there are other moving parts (many more bike lanes and sidewalks in town, construction projects necessitating extended closure of streets near the river, diminished use of offices post-COVID, closing of two blocks of 2nd Avenue SW for Physicians Clinic of Iowa, no discernable influx of population into the city) affecting the use of streets. So the assessments that follow are tentative.

My overall assessment is cautiously positive. I see no significant negative impacts at all, while positive changes to the affected blocks are less-than-revolutionary. Given that one-way streets are inherently confusing, I believe the first objective to be a slam dunk, but the others are subtle or require data I don't have.

Changes in daily traffic counts are interesting, but don't give us a lot to go on. The first round of reconversions, between 2015 and 2017, occurred on 2nd and 3rd Avenues SE/SW, 4th and 5th Avenues SE, and 7th and 8th Streets SE. On 7th and 8th--which remain one-way close to the Interstate entrance--traffic counts away from the Interstate remain roughly the same. On 2nd and 3rd, traffic counts have declined, but the biggest declines occurred well before the conversion, possibly due to changes in the downtown work/shopping scene. Also, 2nd Avenue SE no longer is continuous, since two blocks were closed early in the 2010s to make room for the new Physicians Clinic of Iowa campus. No data are available for 4th and 5th Avenues. (Profuse thanks to the Iowa Department of Transportation for sending along historic traffic count maps.)

Average Daily Traffic Counts, 3rd Avenue SE/SW

(some stretches have multiple readings)

YEAR 1500-1900e 1000-1500e 500-1000e 000-500e     BRIDGE 600w-000

1993                             8300

2005                         7900

2009 4390,6600 8400 6400         4250

2013 3750 4770,5900 4870 4910     4560         3490

2015 conversion from 6th St SW to 3rd St SE

2017 conversion from 5th Ave SW to 6th St SW

2017         3260,5700 4300 3220,2870    3450 2180

2018 conversion from 3rd St to 19th St SE

2021 3720 4370,6700

Speck argues that the most profound negative land use effects of one-way streets are found on the streets leading into downtown, "since most people do most of their shopping on the evening path home" (2012: 178). So we could look for changes on 2nd and 4th Avenues SE, 3rd Avenue SW, and on Center Point Road NE.

• All of the former one-way sections of these streets began in residential neighborhoods, typically with older single-family housing. Of the four streets, the neighborhood on 3rd Avenue is the most transformed, because it was most impacted by the flood. 2nd Avenue has seen a dramatic decrease in traffic because of the two block closure between 12th and 10th Streets, but there's been no new building in the mostly empty 1200 block.

  

  Start of the converted section, 1800 block of 2nd Ave SE

  
  
• Each street must pass through an empty quarter before it reaches downtown: 2nd and 4th Avenues go through the MedQuarter, Center Point Road becomes Coe Road between Coe College and St. Luke's Hospital, and 3rd Avenue passes underneath I-380. Such commercial development as there is on the far side of the empty quarter remains pretty much untouched.

  

  2nd Avenue enters the MedQuarter
  (PCI building is at the end of the block)

  
  
• Only at 3rd Street and below has 3rd Avenue seen a lot of investment as the Kingston Village area has emerged post-flood. 2nd Avenue has held its own close to downtown, with a mix of offices and restaurants, but a surprising amount of vacancies as well. 4th Avenue has seen very little change. Coe Road at this writing is still one-way below A Avenue NE.

Before the conversion: 200 block of 2nd Avenue SE,
August 2017 (Google Earth screenshot)

After the conversion: 200 block of 2nd Avenue SE,
May 2022 (Google Earth screenshot)

So, no dramatic change from the reconverted one-way streets, except for what's explainable by post-flood recovery, MedQuarter expansion, and post-pandemic declines in downtown office occupancy. Cedar Rapids, unlike, say, Providence or Charlotte, has not seen an influx of population that would force more transformation.

I still support the reconversions, for simplicity's sake, because it creates opportunity for future development, and for safety. A three-lane one-way street carrying 8400 cars through a residential neighborhood is not good for the quality of life of the people living there. A three-lane one-way street carrying half that many would be even less safe, because there would be more room for speeding.

ORIGINAL POST: "One Way or Two?" 22 September 2015

OTHER SOURCES: 

Jeff Speck, Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time (Farrar Straus Giroux, 2012)

David Sucher, City Comforts; How to Build an Urban Village (City Comforts Inc., revised ed., 2003)

The authoritarians' war on cities is a war on all of us

Capitol Hill neighborhood, Washington, January 2018

Strongman rule is a fantasy.  Essential to it is the idea that a strongman will be your strongman.  He won't.  In a democracy, elected representatives listen to constituents.  We take this for granted, and imagine that a dictator would owe us something. But the vote you cast for him affirms your irrelevance.  The whole point is that the strongman owes us nothing.  We get abused and we get used to it.--TIMOTHY SNYDER (2025), quoted in Richardson (2025) Emphasis in original.

I'm taking the Trump administration's military occupation of Washington, D.C., a lot more personally than I took the occupation of Los Angeles earlier this year, or of Portland, Oregon in his first term. This is only because I lived there for a few months in 2018, not because it's more important. If James Madison (1785) was correct to write "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties," we should be fully alarmed by now at any of these displays of hostile force. It's certainly gone beyond the "experiment" stage.

Trump and his coadjutors like U.S. Attorney Jeannine Pirro have presented a false picture of violent crime in Washington (Qiu 2025). Like most of America, really, Washington has seen dramatic declines in violent crime since a spike in the latter half of the pandemic years (Lopez and Boxerman 2025, Altheimer Douglas and Contreras 2025). The U.S. as a whole is mostly back to the long-term nationwide decline in violent crime that began about 1990. 

The capital city is far from pacific, though, as Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle (2025) notes: "The problem isn’t as big as it was a few years ago, but with crime, as with cancer, 'somewhat less of a problem than it was' is not really very good news." Shadi Hamid (2025) adds:

Homelessness is worse today than before the pandemic. We don’t need data to tell us that. The encampments are impossible not to notice. And though they might not be the end of the world, they make D.C. feel more dystopian than it actually is, creating the sense of a governance vacuum. No one wants to feel that way about their city, least of all when their city happens to be the capital of the richest, most powerful nation in the world.

Still, the homicide rate in June 2025 was lower than that of St. Louis, Missouri; Richmond, Virginia; Memphis, Tennessee; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Atlanta, Georgia, some of whose governors have opportunistically sent National Guard troops to assist the occupation. In 2024 Washington was less violent than Cleveland, Ohio, or New Orleans, Louisiana, two more states with governors who are sending guardsmen to Washington while not deigning to attempt similar tactics at home. I'm calling bullshit. 

Entering downtown Providence:
Mayor Brett Smiley says "I know my colleagues around the country
are very concerned [occupation] could happen to our cities" (Bendavid 2025)

So, what's the emergency? If crime in Washington is an improving though ongoing serious problem, what's left to justify the occupation? Is the real emergency that Trump's public approval is flagging (Pew Center 2025)? Or that people won't stop talking about Trump's association with sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein?

People like my Senator Joni Ernst, who say they want to reign in "out of control" spending, will want to know this occupation is costing us taxpayers upwards of $1 million per day. And today they're picking up trash and spreading mulch--some awfully expensive landscapers!

And now he's got Chicago in his sights (Saunders 2025b, Lamothe 2025). (Saunders links to this Wikipedia page showing Chicago ranking 92nd among U.S. cities in violent crime though as high as 22nd in homicides.)

Two Shades Cafe in Chicago's Little Italy:
Cities have coffeeshops. We like cities.

If the occupation of D.C. were a serious crime reduction effort, we would have seen some planning that included city officials; a mix of enforcement and prevention methods (Hohmann, McArdle and Mangual 2025); and attention to areas like the Southeast where crime is concentrated. Instead we see prominent appearances in tourist areas like the National Mall, and assaults on food delivery workers (Schulze 2025). Everyday life for residents has been complicated if not outright scary (cf. Lerner 2025, Silverman Benn and Lumpkin 2025). Fox News has some dramatic video for its followers to devour (Wiggins 2025), while normal people doing normal things get pushed around by masked secret police who make no pretense of their political mission (Kabas 2025), and homeless people just get pushed around to different streets (Wild 2025).

It should be noted that National Guard troops are in D.C. to make a show of force, not to actually reduce crime. It’s not an effort to help residents of Southeast D.C., for example, who live with higher rates of violent crime than I, or most readers of this, do. It’s an effort to let people who are fearful of the crime over there that someone’s doing something about it. (Saunders 2025a)

Poster, National Public Housing Museum:
Hating on cities is a way to ignore the legitimate demands of their residents

If we've learned nothing else ten years into Donald Trump's political career, we've learned that:

1. He has no policy commitments whatsoever, making him unique among American presidents in my lifetime. This lack of interest extends to criminal justice (Green 2025).
2. He has no vision for America, or if he does it's rooted in gauzy nostalgia for the post-World War II years. He does make exceptions for stuff like meme coins, the sales of which have gotten him richer through an appalling pay-for-access scheme (Sigalos and Collier 2025)
3. His principal objectives seem to be attention and praise, material wealth, and sexual gratification (though maybe the latter has declined in importance over the years)
4. Losing face is to be avoided at all costs. This leads to false statements on a regular basis, sometimes on the most trivial matters, retribution against anyone who questions him, and the appalling injustices being visited on the accidentally-deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
5. His hatred for anyone who obstructs his access to any of those objectives is deep and enduring (cf. Stein Jacobs Goba and Roebuck 2025, Jacobs Rizzo Roebuck and Stein 2025, Siegel 2025)
6. He relies on drama and display as means of gaining attention, and is adept at using the power of his office for the purpose of creating spectacle.

Nevertheless, Trump has retained considerable political support, and the Republicans who control Congress and the Supreme Court find it prudent to support his actions and personal aspirations regardless of merit or practical consequences. As I suggested when he was reelected, his sizable public support is likely a mix of opportunism (how else do we get to conservative policy outcomes?), fantasy (he is a great leader making America strong), and hatred (he wants to hurt X Group and so do I). It's disturbing that there's so much of these attitudes out there, but it's hard to account for the Trump phenomenon otherwise. As of today he's still at 44 percent in the New York Times polling average.

Not blood-soaked: Community garden, South Ada Street, Chicago

So am I just complaining? My candidate didn't win the last election, boo hoo. My Cubs haven't won a single measly postseason game since 2017. And I have a nagging feeling I personally could be more popular.

Am I just whinging? Does any of this matter?

The Cubs and my popularity, no. But Trump's fondness for what blogger Jennifer Schulze calls "made for TV authoritarianism," and indeed his whole approach to the Presidency, matter deeply and dangerously.

1. Authoritarian approaches represent the failure of the American project. The U.S. Constitution was written over 200 years ago, by imperfect people in a very different world. Its tenuous balancing act between governmental capacity and individual liberties was rooted in a system of checks and balances, which was mostly rooted in a Biblical conception of universal human sinfulness. Unchecked power is antithetical to the whole fabric, and will only end in tears.
2. He appeals strongly to hatred of cities. At issue is not about where you personally would rather live; it's about defending access to vibrant urbanism for all. Urban areas generate the vast portion of American gross domestic product, and are where people go for economic and social opportunity. When Trump claims "the cities are rotting, and they are indeed cesspools of blood," full of "roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people," the truth is not in him. He is speaking to a decades-old stereotype, that to be frank was largely fueled by federal and corporate policies. In the words of Kansas City mayor Quinton Lucas, "They are looking to exploit issues for political gain, not to solve them" (all quotes from Bendavid 2025). You can't find common humanity in people you never see, which is why...
3. Cities are fundamentally about association with others. Pete Saunders recently pointed to an interview with anthropologist Anand Pandian, who has a new book about American society that looks interesting. In his travels Pandian noted the walls Americans keep building around themselves: The US is a vast country, and things look very different in various parts. Yet there are certain patterns in how everyday life is changing that I document in the book: the rise of fortress-like homes, patterns of neighbourhood isolation and segregation, new developments in American automotive and roadway culture that reflect a more defensive orientation concerning others, body cultures that lead people to think of their bodies as needing armouring and protection, and what I call walls of the mind, separating people into different information ecosystems, into completely different realities (Radhakrishna 2025). The more we bury ourselves in fortresses, whether physical or social, the scarier cities seem.
4. We need cities in order to solve our most serious problems. In a world full of seemingly intractable problems--climate change, housing, immigration and refugee flows, the costs of health care and education, and the future of employment, to name a few--we need cities. It's precisely the rollicking diversity of cities that make them places where problems get solved. Freedom, and conversation across differences, lead to innovation. Encounters across social differences make progress possible. Urban living arrangements are more environmentally and financially sustainable, not to mention better for public health. 

Whether you live on a noisy downtown street or by yourself in the woods, the quality of life you enjoy depends on cities. Trump's attack on them is an attack on all of us.

SEE ALSO: "Portland: Authoritarianism, or Nothing to See Here?" 24 July 2020

Theodore R. Johnson, "Trump's National Guard Deployment Echoes Hurricane Katrina Mistakes," Washington Post, 27 August 2025

VIDEO: Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker responded to Trump's threats to occupy Chicago in a magnificent speech August 25 (14:59):

10th anniversary post: Cedar Rapids' protected bike lanes experiment

 

Protected bike lane demonstration project,
3rd Avenue SE, 2 August 2015

A protected bike lane is one that is separated from moving car traffic by some barrier, such as parked cars, bollards, or curbing. This provides more physical protection for riders than a single stripe of paint or a painted zone (buffered lane). (See discussion with illustrations in the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, prepared by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).)

I've been thinking that, when it comes to protected bike lanes, nothing serves as proof-of-concept quite as well as all the riders you see riding on sidewalks instead of streets. But proof of which concept? Sidewalks, despite the occasional presence of pedestrians as well as numerous driveways, are physically separated from the motor vehicle traffic, just like a protected lane; but, unlike a bike lane and more like a trail, they are located off the street.

He wants protection! 300 block of 10th St SE, 2021
(Google Earth screenshot)

Cedar Rapids built its first protected bicycle lane on 3rd Avenue SE less than ten years ago, thanks to advocacy and funding by the Corridor Metropolitan Planning Organization and its crack transportation planner, Brandon K. Whyte. Whyte led a "pop up" demonstration in August 2015, in which parking was moved off the curb to provide protection for the cycle lane. 

Beginning of the protected lane at 8th St SE

By 2019 Cedar Rapids had built protected lanes along 3rd Avenue from 8th Street SE to 6th Street SW. They remain, to my knowledge, the only such lanes in the city. Most bike lanes in the city are unseparated, while construction of cycling infrastructure has focused on trails and shared-use paths.

Shared-use path on K Avenue NE accommodates both
bikes and pedestrians

NACTO considers protected lanes to be an essential part of an "all ages and abilities" (AA&A) cycle network: Protected bike lanes are the only tool for All Ages & Abilities biking on streets with high curbside demand, speeds of more than 25 mph (40 km/h), multiple adjacent travel lanes, or motor vehicle volumes over 6,000 vehicles per day. They do what trails can't; while off-street trails like the CeMar Trail provide cyclists with superior protection over a sustained distance, they don't provide access to destinations (homes, schools, shops, offices) which are inevitably located on streets. Attempting a comprehensive trails network entirely apart from existing streets network could easily become "prohibitively expensive" [David Sucher, City Comforts (Seattle: City Comforts Inc, 2nd ed, 2016), 90].

Riding downtown on 3rd Avenue SW

Protected bike lanes are credited with improving traffic safety as well as encouraging cycling among the interested-but-reluctant. Within a year of introducing bike lanes, New York City found sharp decreases in injuries to all travelers, particularly (and perhaps counter-intuitively) pedestrians [Jeff Speck, Walkable City (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 2012), 190]. Nationally, analysis of data at both the block and network levels published in Nature found protected lanes had 1.8 times more riders than blocks with standard bike lanes, and even more when compared to shared streets (Ferenchak and Marshall 2025). 

Janette Sadik-Khan, who as transportation commissioner of New York City built miles of protected bike lanes among other pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, told Gilbert Penalosa at a Cities for Everyone webinar this summer:

When we put down protected bike lanes like... on 8th Avenue, which was the first one in the United States, we heard lots of people say that they were scared that people wouldn't be able to reach shops, that it was going to be bad for business... but sales data showed that where we put down protected bike lanes, injuries were cut in half, for all people, and shops showed a nearly 50 percent increase in retail sales. [The accompanying slide showed "-58% injuries, -67% pedestrian crashes, -29% speeding, +49% retail sales." She showed additional data from Toronto ("+100% cyclists") and London.] So whether it's making a street safer, better for business, or making it easier to get around, mile for mile, meter for meter, euro for euro, nothing beats a bike lane. [Quotation starts at 24:30 of the video]

Despite all these high-powered arguments, there is opposition. Some of it is the inevitable opposition of self-centered motor vehicle operators who wish everyone would just get out of their personal way, and perceive--correctly--that they are expected to slow down and share road space. Some especially confident cyclists object to what they see as relegation, when as vehicles their bicycles are fully entitled to space on the streets. 

But even ordinary cyclists have concerns about protected lanes. The main concern seems to be intersections, when cyclists are forced into traffic, particularly turning traffic than may not have seen their fellow road user. In particular, parked cars, which often form part of the protective barrier, can obstruct the motorists' view of the protected cyclists. I have myself, because the protected lane forces you into a more-or-less straight path, experienced unavoidable interactions with people standing in the lane, riders coming the wrong way at me, and one e-cyclist urging me out of their way.

100 block of 3rd Avenue SW:
Without a protective barrier, parked cars can and do
encroach on the bicycle lanes (Google Earth screenshot)

These problems appear to be in large part fixable. A cement curb between the cars pictured above and the bike lane they're sharing would provide a lot more "protection" for cyclists.

Given the value of bike lanes in encouraging ridership and improving street safety, we certainly shouldn't fall back onto the status quo. We should respond to problems as they arise, as Memphis has done with bike lanes on Broad Street. After residents experienced frequent issues at the intersection of Broad and Collins Streets, a transportation consultant involved with the original installation "suggested that the city could create a truck apron at the corner using speed bumps. This would tighten the turn radius for cars, forcing them to slow down, while still allowing larger trucks to make the turn. It’s also a quick and easy change to make" (Strong Towns 2025).

NACTO has a number of recommendations for intersections, based on four principles: 

1. change underlying assumptions about how intersections must operate
2. give people biking and walking clear priority over turning vehicles
3. reduce the approach speed and turn speed of motor vehicles
4. make people walking, biking and driving mutually visible

The specific remedy will depend on the intersection, of course, but a bike setback like this...

Source: NACTO

...gives both cyclist and driver more time to see each other. (Note the distance between the crosswalk and where the cars turn.) 

• "Right turn on red" could be barred where there are frequent conflicts between cars and bicycles (and pedestrians). A leading green only works when cars aren't expecting to roll regardless of the color of the light.
• Clearly-marked and maintained crosswalks and "cross-bikes" provide paths across the intersection that are visible to drivers. 
• Removing one parking space from each intersection will provide more visibility, not just of bicycles but also of motorized cross-traffic. 
• Finally, more and more visible traffic enforcement would discourage rogue behavior by everyone--as long as it's focused on genuine dangers (cars blowing stop signs, wrong-way bike riding, aggressive or erratic movement by anybody) and not on easy prey like pedestrians crossing empty streets.

That all said, I think there's room to expand the presence of protected bike lanes. Jeff Speck prefers--at least he did when the first edition of Walkable City was published--shared streets for downtown areas, to allow everyone access to shops, assuming "an environment of such slow driving that bikes and cars can mix comfortably at biking speeds" [2012: 203-204]--which is not always the case in Downtown Cedar Rapids. Speck wants to look at streets "where car speeds get into the thirties." I'd start with those of our stroads that don't have quieter streets that parallel them: 16th Avenue SW, Center Point Road NE, and Mount Vernon Road SE, to name a few.

So, bottom line: protected bike lanes are a boon--not a cure-all, and not appropriate everywhere, but done right they are a boon nonetheless.

ORIGINAL POST: "Cedar Rapids' Protected Bike Lanes Experiment," 3 August 2015

The bottom line is private cars don't scale

Czech Village parking lot, November 2020

My latest brush with fame came last weekend, when the Cedar Rapids Gazette published a long article by reporter Steve Gravelle on the Czech Village-New Bohemia district, suggesting that development in the area has reached a sort of inflection point: 

A wave of new residential and mixed-use building construction over the past decade nearly tripled property values in the neighborhood, from $12.9 million in 2015 to $37 million last year, according to Jennifer Vavra Borcherding, director of The District: Czech Village and New Bohemia.... The recent projects were built on property the city acquired through post-flood buyouts, replacing dozens of single-family homes that were swept away. The shift to high-density apartments and town houses has altered NewBo's historic aesthetic.

The article included a number of quotes from "Bruce Nesmith, who studies urban design and is a founder of the Corridor Urbanists group," including:

Ten years ago, when I started hanging out down here, I hoped it would evolve in the direction of urban village--places for people to work, places for people to shop, places for people to live. It's probably not done that. The direction now is economic development as a tourist destination, which is OK.

I'll own those statements, though I hope my original comments followed "OK" with "but..." or "if...." In any case, despite much new residential construction, commercial development has been specialized rather than fulfilling "normal daily needs;" and that prospects for hotel construction seem optimistic given the city has been unable to find a private buyer for the big downtown hotel it pushed in 2013. I wrote more about all that last fall.

My participation in the article got a fair amount of attention. Several people expressed to me concern about proposed additional development discussed in the article. They told me about the difficulty of parking for events in the district, and worries that additional residential and commercial development would bring more people competing for fewer parking spaces. Not everyone can walk to every place, I was told, which while true, can get psychically translated into "Not anyone should be expected to walk to any place." 

Given the amount of space this blog has given to tracking the vast waste of space that parking lots represent--even on Black Friday--I was resistant to their concerns. Everyone should understand, if they don't already, that car storage takes up enormous amounts of land at low taxable value, increasing the distance between destinations, squashing vibe, and making any other way of getting around inconvenient if not outright impossible. (See Grabar 2023.)

And yet! I'm not here to preach about personal choices, to residents or shoppers. This blog is first and foremost about public policy, which should make personal choices possible. But Cedar Rapids has developed in a way that Czech Village and New Bohemia are heavily dependent on recreational consumers coming from elsewhere, and the vast proportion of those consumers are simply not in a position to get there except by private motor vehicle. That's not the fault of individuals, it's the fault of the community.

The Czech Village-New Bohemia district is basically Edgewood Road, except for being a whole lot cuter. Maybe this all was inevitable, and the urban village was always going to be a pipedream. Or a sales pitch.

Drive-to urbanism is a thing, but without the valuable attributes of real urbanism. (For an egregious nearby example, see Kaplan 2016.) You can't drive your way to real urbanism. Driving requires parking; you've seen the aerial photos of a 75,000-seat sports stadium surrounded by untold acres of parking. Or how many bicycles fit into a single car-parking space. People don't take up much room, but their cars do.

Parking lot, Tropicana Field, St. Petersburg FL

If getting someplace, whether it's New Bohemia or Lindale Mall, requires driving, it's going to require parking. Parking requires way more space per person than practically any other use of urban land. Way more space requires way more city infrastructure without the revenue to pay for it (Mieleszko 2025). Land used for parking can't be used for housing or shops or parks or schools or anything else that contributes to quality of life. Without the ability of people to walk or bike or take public transit to places, locations become placeless. Roads then need to become wider in an (ultimately fruitless) effort to keep up with the demand to drive. This too is a financial loser for the city.

The bottom line is private cars don't scale. I don't know how New Bohemia ultimately solves that problem, but you can't parking lot your way to long-term prosperity.

ORIGINAL SOURCE: Steve Gravelle, "New Bo Comes of Age," Cedar Rapids Gazette, 3 August 2025, 1A, 4-5A