Yes, you can ride the bus, even if you live way outside the city.

Just because there isn't bus service to your home doesn't mean you can't arrive at work by bus.

This morning brought another conversation about driving, parking, costs, buses, and the possibility that transit and driving could be combined to save some money. It doesn't really matter what the details of the situation were today, because the conversation followed a familiar path. I've has variations on the same conversation dozens of times. This particular one occurred as a woman was trying to renew her parking permit on the UW campus.

Woman complaining about parking costs: It's so expensive. Parking should be free. Nobody else charges employees to park!

Me: [After pointing out that the UW Transportation Services gets no state funding, and has to somehow raise revenue to provide the parking she wishes were free. And that actually, many places charge for parking. Some employers in Madison don't provide any options other than parking in the public ramps, so that costs way more than the spots at UW.] Why don't you take the bus? Then you wouldn't have to pay for parking at all?

Woman: I live in [outlying community about 20 miles away], so I can't take the bus.

Me: Well, you could drive into an area in Madison with good bus service, and then take the bus from there. Just park on the street. Lot's of people do it. No cost for the parking, and then the UW provides the bus pass for you as well.

Woman: It takes too long.

Me: Actually, it's only about fifteen minutes from Hilldale. There are a bunch of buses that go from there right to the campus.

Woman: Well, what if my kids get sick? I have to have my car.

Me: The UW provides an emergency ride home. If your kids get sick, you can take get a ride to where you parked the car, and then drive from there.

Woman: I wish they told us that.

Me: They do. They send out an email every semester to all employees outlining the options other than driving alone and parking.

Woman: Well, I didn't see it.

Me: OK, well, now you know. It's just one option to save some money.

It doesn't matter what community this woman lives in, or whether she works at the UW or somewhere else, except that the UW has done an excellent job of providing information to all employees on how to get to and from work without driving. This woman gets all sorts of emails on this subject, and probably has seen posters at her office, received mailings, and even heard people talk about the bus pass program, but she rejected it for two reasons:
1. She knows there's no bus in her community, so she assumes that a bus is not an option for arriving at work, never considering the possibility that she could take the bus part way and avoid that pesky parking fee.
2. She's never taken a bus in her life, and it scares her to think about taking a bus.

OK, I'm speculating on that second point. But Madison is just small enough that there are a lot of people that still view buses as for poor people, brown people [oh, the horrors!], students, and crazy environmentalists. Buses are urban things, and she lives in a rural community. She wouldn't have the first idea how to find the correct bus, and she has no intention of finding out how to use the system.

So she'll continue to complain about the cost of parking. But maybe, just maybe, one day she will try riding the bus, just to prove that it won't work for her, and she'll find out it's actually pretty easy. Then she'll think about all the money she could save by giving up her parking spot, or getting flex parking, and maybe another multimodal commuter will be born.

And by the way, the City of Madison can also help you find ways to avoid driving (and parking) every day. So you don't have to be a UW employee to get that emergency ride home. But if you happen to be a UW employee, and don't already know about the services they provide, check out the Commuter Solutions page. It's great information for anyone in Madison.

Transit funding crisis: Maybe we should treat city services the same way

Transit services across the country are facing painful questions regarding service cuts vs. fare hikes, as shown by this interactive feature at Transportation for America. Which is worse?

Fare hikes often hit the poor and transit-dependent* very hard. A fare hike from $1.50 to $2.00 might as well be a change in gas prices from $3.00 to $4.00, plus a hike in registration, insurance, and parking. Each represents a 33% hike in transportation costs.

But service cuts also hit these groups as well. They may need to ride the bus at odd hours or access locations that are not on core routes+. Transit dependent people may not be able to get to work, the doctor, shopping, or to visit family and friends unless there is service when and where they need to go. If the bus isn't running, they often have no alternative.

So when faced with limited funds, do you put them into service that benefits the greatest number of riders? That would likely be the core routes during commuter hours: Buses that run into downtown in the morning and out of downtown in the evening. Or do you continue to provide what is known in the industry as "lifeline service?" That would be buses that run to areas of the city with no other transit service, but also may have low-income populations, jobs, and services that people need. If you cut that off, those areas are then off limits to anyone without a car, or a sturdy set of legs to bike or walk.

An article today outlined that debate going on in Boston, but the article could have been written about almost any city in the country.

So I started thinking about how we decide who gets transit service. In Madison, there are plenty of areas of the city that do not have transit service, usually on the edge of town where there aren't many people (yet.) Metro doesn't have the money to extend transit service to these areas, so everyone that lives, works, or shops there generally has to travel in and out of the neighborhood by car.

I believe that transit is a core city service, and maybe we shouldn't be building in areas where we can't provide transit service. We pick up trash and leaves, even though there are very few people there. I can assure you that people would scream bloody murder if their streets weren't plowed. It's expensive to provide services in areas where there isn't much density. you have to drive all those city vehicles up and down the street for only a handful of people, instead of serving hundreds of people that live along the same length of street in my neighborhood.

And then I head people complaining that they see buses with almost no one on them. Yeah? Well, I see lots of streets with almost no one on them as well. Those streets get plowed, fixed, serviced by the city.

Maybe we can save some money by just not providing services to those areas of the city with a population density of less than X units per acre. Pick a number. Or a traffic volume. "We don't really need to plow that street, there aren't that many people living there anyway, and money is tight." Or maybe, "I'm sorry folks, you will have to carry your trash, recycling, brush and leaves to a main street, because it's just not efficient to have the truck come down your street for so few people." After all, they all have cars anyway, they can put all that stuff in the back of the car for a few blocks to save all the taxpayers of the city some money.


* Transit dependent is a term for those without any other way to get around - the elderly, children, people with disabilities, and those who simply can't afford a car. The opposite group would be "choice riders," who can chose to use transit or some other option, such as driving.

+ Core routes are those that serve the downtown, major destinations, major corridors, etc. They often run evenings, weekends, holidays, and have frequent service.

Survey on interest in downtown bike center

I'm using this blog as a way to have a link I can post elsewhere, so excuse the fact that this looks like an email. It was an email. 


There has been much discussion over the last few years about building a "bike station" in either the downtown or on campus. Because Bike Station is a company, the generic term "bike center" is used below and in the survey. Now there is a real possibility of having a bike center built downtown, just blocks from the Capitol, the GEF buildings, Farmers' Market, Capital Square activities, city/county government, and thousands of other downtown workers. 


Consultants are interested in seeing what the interest is in a bike center and what amenities people would like to see. Please pass on this link, distribute it in emails, or post it in whatever method you can to get responses to the survey.


This is NOT just for current bicycle commuters! We want to hear from others at your workplace, friends, clubs, Facebook, listservs, etc. The city is trying to get as much input from the public as possible, from many different groups and areas of the city.

The city would like your input on interest in a bike center (aka "bike station") for a the redevelopment of the area that is currently occupied by the parking ramp next to the Great Dane downtown. 

More information is in the email copied below from the consultant. 

If you don't want to read the whole thing, the survey link is:

www.surveymonkey.com/s/8LXYMM8

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

[start forwarded message from consultant]

The City of Madison has recently initiated a planning process for the future redevelopment of the Government East Parking Ramp, which is located on Pinckney Street.  The site is part of the recently named Judge Doyle Square, which is bounded by Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, East Doty Street, East Wilson Street, and the parcel containing the parking ramp (i.e., Block 88 and Block 105). The planning for Judge Doyle Square is part of a larger effort to form a bold vision for the South-East area of the Central Business District, which will place an emphasis on transit-oriented development.  The master planning process for Block 105, which is being coordinated by a consultant team that includes Kimley-Horn, Potter Lawson, and Urban Assets, will be completed over the course of the next four months. 

The redevelopment of Block 105 will include the construction of an underground parking ramp as well as public improvements to Pinckney Street.  One of the proposed uses for the redevelopment is a bicycle Center.  Mobis Transportation Alternatives (www.mobisinc.com) has been engaged to analyze the feasibility of including a bicycle center in the redevelopment and to develop a concept plan for its size, amenities, and operations.

We need your input in order to determine the potential demand for a bicycle center in Downtown Madison, what amenities it should include, and how it might be used by the greater Madison community.  Please take a few minutes to fill out the survey.  It can be accessed by clicking the link below.  If you are not taken directly to the survey, please copy the address and paste it into your browser.

www.surveymonkey.com/s/8LXYMM8

For more information on the Judge Doyle Square Master Plan process, please go to:

www.cityofmadison.com/planning/judgeDoyleSquare

Thank you for your participation!  Your input is very important.

[end forwarded message]

Downtown Bicycle Parking: Issues and Solutions

Below is a document that I wrote in 2005, and recently edited as part of a discussion at several city committees on downtown bicycle parking. It was presented at the Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission in July, and has been sent to the State Street Design Oversight Committee as well. (It's long, but I wanted to get all my thoughts on the subject out in one place.)

At the July PBMVC, we also saw a draft proposal from Rebecca Cnare of the City Planning Department, which outlines some ways to increase bicycle parking in the downtown.

This topic is an ongoing discussion at city committees as well as among downtown business groups. I will point out that several of the suggestions in my report have already been or are about to be implemented, such as bike corrals - adding racks in the street where a car parking spot is currently located - and valet bike parking at Concerts on the Square, organized by Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin.

In a few days - or whenever I finish it - I will post another document I wrote about bike stations. As part of the rebuilding/redevelopment of the Government East Parking Ramp, a bike station has been proposed, and the UW has also discussed adding one to Union South.

BICYCLE PARKING ON STATE STREET

(and parts of the Capital Square.)

Issues and Solutions

Written by Robbie Webber

originally in approx. 2005, later revised and expanded summer 2011

The problem – inadequate bicycle parking

It is clear there is a lack of adequate bicycle parking on State Street. One only needs to walk up and down the street to see that there are many more bicycles than there are spots to park them. Even existing racks contain many more bikes than they were designed to accommodate.

Why it matters

If anyone thinks that this is just an inconvenience to bicyclists, I must point out that it is not. With nowhere appropriate to park bicycles, they are locked to benches, sign poles, parking meters, trees, fences, or other objects. They lean against buildings or other vertical surfaces. They then become pedestrian hazards or damage street furniture.

Appropriately accommodating bicycle parking makes business sense – and cents. A few years back we were proposing to build a band new car parking ramp for $11 million (the Mid-State St Ramp.) The yet-to-be-designed ramp to replace the Government East Ramp has an unknown, but likely very high price tag. We added 27 auto spots on the Square. We hear constantly about the need for auto parking in downtown. Many, many bikes can be parked in the space needed for just one car, and the cost is pennies compared to even one underground auto spot. Yet we have no plan to accommodate the thousands of visitors to State Street that arrive by bicycle.

Just as with car parking, businesses with convenient bike parking gain customers. Those without spots lose the impulse buyers or convenience diners. One reason people bike to downtown is because they can ride up to their destination. But if there is nowhere to park in front of the building, they may bypass that location for another.

The barriers to more bicycle parking

Whenever I have asked about increased bicycle parking, city staff points out all the locations on the sidewalk where a standard 3-4 space racks cannot be placed. There is only a limited amount of sidewalk, and many uses compete for the space. Besides a place to walk, the sidewalk on State Street is a place to serve food and beverages, sell merchandise, or sit on a bench. There are also street trees, delivery zones, bus stops, trash containers, street lights, and other street amenities. These are all fine uses, but each use competes with the others.

In addition to lack of space on the sidewalk, some merchants and property owners do not wish to have a bike rack placed in front of their building. I have heard comments that bike racks are “unsightly.” This is sad, because each bike means a potential customer for that business or an employee that does not need a car parking spot. I am also struggling with the resistance to placing bike racks on the south side of the 200 block (the Overture side.) According to our 1988 zoning code amendment, all new developments need to include bicycle parking in their plans. Yet the Planning Department has indicated none were included in the plans for Overture. This is direct violation of our zoning code. Further, the Overture Board has indicated they do not wish any racks placed on their side of the 200 block of State St. Since this side of the street is considerably wider than the north side, with fewer vendors and cafes, and Overture is far and away the largest draw on that block, I find it strange that they hold this position.

(The above paragraph was written a couple off years after the Overture Center was opened. Since then, as part of the redesign and rebuilding of the 200 block, I managed to get some racks installed on Fairchild St, at least within view of the main entrance to Overture. However, the Madison Museum of Contemporary Art still resists allowing any racks on the corner of State St and Henry, either on the State St side or the Henry side. There is quite a bit of space in both these locations, and a desperate need in that part of State St, especially for large events downtown.)

Finally, I believe a barrier to adequately accommodating bicycle parking needs is the assumption that the only way bicycles can be stored is on the sidewalk in standard 3-4 space racks. True, there are racks in the parking garages, but as we will see, there is no signage to direct people to these locations. I believe there is also an implicit “this is the best we can do” attitude among city staff. There does not appear to be the will among the various departments to solve the problem.

At some point in our civic past, Madison city staff, elected officials, and citizens made the decision that the city had the responsibility to appropriately store cars. We made accommodations so that there were places for people to leave their cars safely and efficiently while they worked, shopped, dined, attended events, or even went home to sleep. Madison has one of the highest bicycle transportation mode splits in the entire US, and the downtown is the highest use in Madison. It is time for the city to make this same commitment to bicycle parking.

Below are some ideas to relieve the bicycle parking crisis in downtown. No one idea will be sufficient, and all are just that, ideas. This is simply a starting point for further brainstorming and discussion. I hope you find it helpful.

Concepts to consider

1. Begin to think of bicycle parking in the same way we think of car parking. On June 9, (2005?) DMI hosted a presentation on Best Practices in Parking Management. Although I found most of the information too obvious for a city such as Madison, we can use some of the same concepts the consultant covered to plan appropriate bicycle parking. Look over your notes, and simply substitute “bicycle” everywhere that you would normal think “cars.” Proximity to destinations, inviting parking facilities, signage, customer service, new technologies, Private-public partnerships, etc. are but a few concepts that we need to consider.

2. Think of bicycles in the same way we think of cars. They are vehicles that need to be stored for short or long periods of time. We have short, medium, and long term car parking. We remove cars that appear to be abandoned. We have a limit on how long a car can be parked in a certain location. We devote staff to making sure cars are efficiently parked, and we enforce rules. We have people who use their cars every day, and people who use them occasionally. We have people that do not know their way around downtown, and we help them find a place to park their cars. People use their cars for commuting, for work, for shopping trips, or simply to visit the downtown. All of the above could also be said for bicycles. In some cases, using the same rules and requirements may not make sense, but we can start to think of bikes as vehicles that need a framework for parking.

Possible solutions

1. Make sure that bikes that are abandoned are removed. Bikes abandoned in racks are occupying spaces that others could be using. The city has let this task lapse, but it was never adequately staffed. Bicycles could be tagged on Monday each week and removed on Friday if the tag still exists. This means no bike is removed before 3 days has elapsed, and would clear spots a minimum of once a week. It seems that bikes only get removed before Maxwell Street Days and before Halloween. Even when people call to request removal of an abandoned bike, it is not done. We already have an ordinance that bicycles cannot be parked on the public right of way for more than 48 hours. It is the same ordinance that requires cars be moved every 48 hours (a requirement that many of my neighbors hate because they do not use their cars frequently.)

2. Consider lockers for daily commuters or local residents without bike storage on site. Many spots that could be occupied by shoppers or diners are taken by long term parkers. Lockers could be rented monthly. This allows a bicyclist with extensive commuting gear (lights, panniers, odometer, helmet, etc.) to leave much of the gear on the bike and know that it will be secure. People riding more expensive bikes will also feel their bike is safe from theft of vandalism.

3. Consider coin-operated lockers for people who wish to leave expensive bikes or purchases in the locker for medium or long term parking. An example would be similar to lockers one sees in train terminals or airports. Occasional shoppers may not want to rent a monthly locker, but they will be glad to have a place to store purchases while they eat diner or attend events. It would allow use similar to taking ones purchases back to the car until one is ready to go home.

4. Signage is very important. Many racks exist in locations that are not obvious or even visible from the main destinations on State St. This is one of the problems with the racks in the parking ramps or farther away from State St on Henry Street. If one is going to a show at the Orpheum or Overture Center, how is one supposed to know that racks exist on Henry St or the State Street Capital ramp? Even staring directly at the entrance to the city ramp gives no indication that racks are available inside.

5. Put smaller racks on the street. Parking meters or sign poles are used as de facto bike racks, yet take up little space. “Hitching post” type racks can accommodate two bikes, and occupy very little space. There are many locations that cannot accommodate a 3-4 space rack, but could easily take a hitching post.

6. Convert parking meters, poles, or other street accessories into real racks. This has been started with the conversion of the parking meters to “pay by space” parking systems. The poles remain and have been retrofitted with rings to allow proper bicycle parking. Tree protection fences, benches, or other street furniture can include bike parking spaces. This is done in many cities where people have used trees as bicycle parking. (This is illegal in Madison and damages young trees, which is why it is illegal in most cities.) decorative fences around trees can also have elements to allow proper bicycle parking.

7. The city may need to acquire property to adequately accommodate bicycle parking. We use real estate that could be privately held to park cars. Is it time to build a city bike parking lot or ramp? One caveat with this concept is that bicycle parking needs to be even more convenient than car parking in order to be used. One reason that bicycles are an attractive transportation alternative is because there is an expectation that parking will be extremely close to the destination. The previously proposed “Bike Station” at or near the site of the Government East Ramp/Public Market/High Speed Rail Station/current municipal lot would serve employees in the GEF complexes and the south side of the Square, but would not serve most of State St. However, a similar facility might help relieve the need for secure long-term parking in the State St area.

8. More space in city ramps can be devoted to bicycle parking. However, there must be adequate signage so that bicyclists know the spots exist. Bicycle parking inside ramps should also be attractive and feel safe. Better lighting, better visibility from the street or locations near parking personnel will mean nighttime use is less intimidating. The bicyclist should also feel safe from car traffic within the ramp.

9. Bicycle racks could be placed on the street instead of the sidewalk. A wall or other barrier would be required to protect bicycles and users from motorized traffic in the street. On-street parking is the solution for many short-term car parking spots, and it may be one solution for short term bicycle parking as well. One advantage of this approach is that the spots are highly visible and possibly closer to destinations than other locations. Many bicycles can be parked in the space required for one car, so many spots could be added with minimal loss of car spaces. Cities around the US are starting to convert car spots to bike spots. If plowing in the winter is a problem (as I have heard), these spots could be seasonal, as bicycle parking demand obviously goes down (but not away!) in the winter.

10. A private-public partnership or a for-profit enterprise may be viable avenues for development of facilities. Especially with regard to long-term bicycle parking, it is possible to make bike parking profitable. A business with underutilized space may wish to offer guarded bicycle parking for daily commuters. This would not even require racks, but simply a secure place to leave one’s bike. State Street is not the ideal location for this because of a lack of large employers. This concept would work very well near the GEF buildings. (See comments above about proposed Bike Station.)

11. Large event sponsors or destinations may want to consider “valet” bicycle parking. In the past, Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin provided this service for the Great Taste of the Midwest and the Madison Blues Festival, both in Olin Park. A non-profit group or even a for-profit enterprise could park bikes for events such as Maxwell Street Days, Taste of Madison, Farmers’ Market, Overture Center events, Orpheum concerts, etc.  The sponsor or group would need to find a location to store the bikes while patrons attend the event, but the location would not need to be as close as optimal racks.

12. Consider vertical storage. Lockers exist which allow bicycles to be parked on two levels. I have tested some of the devices at conferences, and even a short woman with little upper body strength (me) can place a bicycle in the upper berth. Some racks are made that hang bikes by the front wheel. This allows bicycle parking in less horizontal space than a standard rack.

Next steps

The above ideas are just off the top of my head. I am not an urban designer, planner, parking expert, or engineer. I have also not studied the problem except as a user of the facilities (or lack thereof.) As with any change in city policy, investment, or public need, I would suggest we do a study of the issues and problems and come up with a set of formal recommendations. Below are some steps that should be included to reach a solutions to the problem of inadequate bicycle parking downtown.

Several different city departments will need to be consulted, but I would suggest that the lead department should be Planning. They work with the downtown business community, neighborhood groups, economic development interests, City Engineering, Mall Concourse (housed in the Parks Dept), and Traffic Engineering (Parking Utility and the Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator) on a regular basis. Planning has the staff and expertise to work with all these interests.

Survey existing bicycle parking facilities. Traffic Engineering and Mall Concourse should have a list and count of all the bike racks in the State St/Capital Square area, but I wonder if they also include the racks in the parking ramps. If these counts and location maps need to be updated, that should be done.

Survey where bikes are parked, both legally and illegally. I have done occasional counts on State St, and often found 140% more bikes parked than there are legal and appropriate parking spots. We need to know what the demand is in order to meet said demand. Surveys should be done during the day midweek, during Farmers Market, when there is an evening event (for instance Overture), and on weekends, both daytime and evening. Art Fair on the Square, Concerts on the Square, Maxwell St Days, or other special events should be included in these surveys.

Talk to business owners. Some may have ideas, others concerns. I have heard from some business interests that they are very concerned about the lack of adequate parking for their customers. Others may not realize that their customers come by bike. Still others are actively opposed to additional bike parking in front of their business.

Talk to the Madison Police Department and Mall Concourse about how to solve the abandoned bike problem. Tagging and removing abandoned bikes does not seem to be a priority, or even a regular event, however I believe it is crucial to solving this problem.

Survey bicyclists parking downtown. These are the customers for the facilities. There are likely many categories and corresponding needs with the bicycling community: business customers, daytime commuters, event attendees, downtown residents (who probably have nowhere else to park, so use racks that should be available for short term parkers), downtown employees, etc.

Consider the needs of different users. Some of these bicyclists may be willing to park slightly farther away, in less convenient spots, if given better, more secure facilities. For instance, if someone will be parking for several hours every day (commuters), they may give up a spot in front of their place of business if their options are expanded to locked, covered, or otherwise upgraded facilities. Downtown residents may need a place to store their bikes overnight or for winter. Again, we may be able to make more street spots available if we move long term parking elsewhere. Also, some consideration of paid bicycle parking may be appropriate for optimum spots and facilities. (See suggestions of lockers, “bike stations,” and public-private partnerships.)

Survey space that could be converted to bicycle parking. Bicycle parking can be clumped together - like a parking ramp, or dispersed - like street spots for cars, but using post and ring or 2-bike spots.

Come up with a plan to meet the demand! Again, this might involve a list of recommendations, such as long term solutions, such as structured bicycle parking, as well as short term or policy changes using existing facilities.

Thanks to City Engineering for being responsive

Sometimes we need to thank people for doing the right thing. Public employees have gotten beat up a lot in Wisconsin over the last few months, and I'd like to be sure we thanks them when they respond to citizen input and concerns. OK, I may have a bit more pull, because I know who to email or call, due to my alder tenure, but I'm just an average, if well informed citizen.

Yesterday, I sent the email below to the Madison City Engineer, Rob Phillips along with the photo seen below.

Rob - 

Not sure who on your staff is overseeing the N Lake St project. Please forward as needed.
Please see attached photo. It is facing the northbound traffic, i.e. the direction that is allowed during the project.  

Why do bicyclists need to walk? Most bicyclists are going to be going the same speed or faster than the motorized traffic in this area, so I see no reason why they can't ride int he lane, just like everyone else. 

Perhaps this sign is courtesy of the contractor, who simply does not recognize the legal status and abilities of bicyclists. If so, could you have a word with them to have them take it down?

Now, if they want to put that sign up facing southbound - where bicyclists will certainly be wanting to make the transition from Langdon to State St - that would make more sense. However, I am hoping that there will soon be a small counterflow lane on N Lake for bicyclists. The Lakeshore Path => Langdon => State St route is a pretty major bike route without a good alternative. (See below regarding this discussion at a City-UW committee.) 

Moving on to the Langdon project that will be coming up later this summer, at the Joint West Campus Area Committee, we asked if it would be possible to keep a counterflow lane open for bicyclists during the project. I would guess that both the 800 block of Langdon and N Lake between State and Langdon get as much or more bicycle traffic than car traffic in summer. Since the State St Mall does not allow biking, and University is very far out of the way for those trying to get from State St to the Lakeshore Path - a very major bike route - I would hope this request from our meeting could be accommodated.  

Thanks for your help in these matters.

I got an email back this morning, with various City Engineering staff cc'd, agreeing that the sign could be removed. I'm headed down that way now, but I assume that it is either gone or will be soon. 

So, I just wanted to thank City Engineering for responding so quickly. I expected that they would recognize that bicyclists are both legal users of the road, so there is no reason they need to walk their bikes instead of riding them, because this is Madison, and staff are very supportive of bicycling, but taking care of the problem is what really counts.

How to pick a bike helmet, and when to replace it

Another in a long list of topics that seems to come up frequently: What kind of bike helmet should I buy? And how long to they last? 

(If you are an experienced bicyclist, you can skip this post. I'm just writing up the FAQs of bicycle education.)

Recently, Steve Meiers, City of Madison Pedestrian-Bicycle Safety Assistance, posted a link on a local email list to a report from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. It basically says that cheap helmets work just as well as expensive helmets, as long as they both are approved by the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC.) Although you can spend $150 or $200 on a bike helmet, a $30-35 helmet will protect your head just as well.

The difference tends to be color, number and size of vents, and some aesthetic options. For me, one big issue is how easy it is to adjust the straps. Making sure that your helmet fits well, and can be adjusted if the straps stretch, you tuck your hair up, or you want to wear a hat is very important. Here are some tips on fitting helmets correctly:

As an almost-daily bike commuter, I tend to spend a bit more on my helmets for one reason: I am likely going to wearing it every day and frequently for long periods of time. I want a helmet that fits me, is easy to adjust, and feels comfortable. I've owned helmets that didn't quite feel right, or were hard to adjust, and it just drove me nuts.

For what it's worth, I now own two helmets. (OK, I still have any old helmets that just got too banged up and/or gross from daily use, which I use for guests or in emergencies, but I mean new/current helmets.) One is my commuting helmet. It has fewer vents and was considerably cheaper than the other one. I finally decided to get a helmet just for long rides that had better ventilation and was a tiny bit lighter. Since I blew more than my normal helmet budget on it, I'm hoping it will last longer than the commuting helmet.

And for those who wonder, helmets don't last forever. They need to be replaced. Manufacturers will say three to five years or one crash. Helmets are meant to be single use: If you crash, replace your helmet. There may be micro cracks in the foam that will compromise its ability to protect you in the future.

Because I use my helmet almost every day, constantly being carried around or locked to the bike, clipped and unclipped, bumped, pushed, pulled, adjusted, etc., my helmet gets sort of beat up and nasty after about two years. A new helmet is an inexpensive component of my transportation system. Like so many other things about a bike, I think how much a tank of gas is for the car, and then decide that I can afford to buy a new helmet when I need one.

The three things that most degrade the foam of the helmet - the part that is actually protecting your head - are: heat, sunlight, and salt. Hmmmm.... what things is my helmet likely exposed to as I go out riding in hot weather: my sweaty, hot head in bright, hot sunlight.

Seminole Hwy vs. Badger Trail: Why not use the path?

Recently, the Wisconsin State Journal ran a letter asking why bicyclists aren't using the Badger State Trail, which in some areas runs next to Seminole Hwy, instead of the road. This seems to be a common question, "There's a path right there. How come the bicyclist isn't using it? Why are they on the road? Isn't it safer on the path?"

Here is my answer:

Many of the riders you see on Seminole Hwy are going too fast for the path. Paths are not just for bicyclists, but also walkers, joggers, kids on bikes, dog walkers, and slower recreational cyclists. So if you want to go fast, either because you are in a hurry - like so many motorists - or because you are trying to get your heart rate up, the road is the proper place to bike. In the same way motorists cannot drive 55 on many narrow roads with poor sight lines or other, slower users, bicyclists should not be going 20-25 mph on the path, even when there is no one on it.
The bicyclists on the road also may not be coming or going to a location that makes the path a logical choice. Leaving the Arboretum, you use Seminole Hwy to cross the Beltline and get to many places in Fitchburg. The path crosses in a different location. Much as a bicyclist might ask, "Why is the motorist not on Verona Rd?"
The road is only unsafe if the motorists do not wait until it is safe to pass the bicyclist. I have been riding on Seminole Hwy for 20 years, and the only problems I have are when drivers are in too much of a hurry, and cannot slow down until there is a gap to pass.
All these perceived conflicts could have been avoided if Fitchburg had added bike lanes all the way down to Whalen Rd a number of years ago. But they said, "There isn't that much traffic. Bicyclists and motorists can share the lane easily." So now we have bicyclists doing exactly what the planners suggested, and the motorists being upset by that action. 

Be Bright helps Madison cyclists see and be seen

Last night on the East Isthmus Path, bicyclists who didn't have lights after dark were stopped by Madison Police. The good news for these folks is that they weren't given a $76.20 ticket, as state law and Madison ordinance allows, but instead were given a front and rear light. Yes, they had to listen to a quick safety talk and wait around while we attached the lights to their bikes, but isn't free stuff better than a ticket?








One problem with giving out free lights (or helmets), is that these programs can discourage people from making the same purchases from local bike shops. But in this case, local bike shops are very supportive, and partnered with the project by having us hand out coupons for discounts on helmets and other bike accessories. The lights that we gave out were pretty basic, and most year round, all weather, all-day-and-night commuters choose a more powerful or rechargeable light.

Bike Walk Madison organized the volunteers, and the lights were purchased at cost from Planet Bike via a grant from the Dane County Bicycle Association. If sufficient donations are received, this program will continue. If you would like to donate to the program, you can send a check to Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, with a note that it is to support the Be Bright program. Right now, they are not set up to take on line donations for this program, so please, checks only. The address is: Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin [attn: Be Bright], PO Box 1224, Madison, WI 53701-1224.

Thanks to the volunteers who came out to help out:
Jay Ferm (Advocacy Director at Planet Bike), India Viola (co-owner of We Are All Mechanics), Amanda White (Assoc Exec Dir at Bike Fed), Craig Jackson, Alex DePillis, Mitch Nussbaum, and Liz Zelandais. Unfortunately, I didn't get the names of all the MPD officers who also helped out, but Chris Masterson - a bike commuter himself - was the organizer on that end.

Auto-dependence forces financial and personal sacrifices

Interesting article today on CNNMoney.com. It's all about the financial costs of high gas prices, which may also force personal sacrifices as well.

Tell the Joint Finance Committee you don't want the RTA legislation repealed!

I stole the message at the end of this post from an anti-RTA email that arrived in my mailbox. Sorry about the poor formatting, but I don't have time to clean it up. All the phone numbers and names are there, but the links don't work.
For email, the format for assembly addresses is: Rep.[last name]@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senators are: Sen[last name]@legis.wisconsin.gov

Example: Sen.Darling@legis.wisconsin.gov or Rep.Voss@legis.wisconsin.gov

Although the die is cast - the Republicans have the votes to repeal the RTA-enabling legislation - we don't want to make it easy for them! Speak up now, and then write a letter to the editor to support transit and RTAs.

Please call or email members of the Joint Finance Committee to tell them transit is important to you and to Wisconsin.

Here are just some reasons why we need transit, and local communities need the flexibility to form RTAs:

Raise the federal gas tax!

If you already understand federal funding for surface transportation, please excuse some simplification in the explanation below. But if you understand transportation funding, you also understand that is too complex for a simple blog post.

Each year I attend the National Bike Summit, a conference/lobbying trip in Washington, DC to talk about bicycling with our legislators. I'm not going to bore you to death with the minutiae of transportation funding or the federal process, if you want an overview of the current legislation, you can go here. But there are a few critical points to understanding what is going on.

1. The federal government generally passes a multi-year transportation bill so that states and local governments can plan for the big projects that are funded with this pot of money. If you are going to spend $1 billion on upgrading the SE Wisconsin freeway system - including the $810 million Marquette Interchange - you don't want to be guessing what the feds are going to do year to year.

2. The current 5-6 year bill expired a year ago, and to keep the money flowing the feds have passed a series of what are known as a continuing resolutions. These basically continue the same funding programs, at the same levels, for as long as these short-term pieces of legislation last, typically 3-6 months. When the bill expired last March, no one wanted to touch the bill before the mid-term elections, so they just kicked the can down the road. (Pun intended.)

Why didn't anyone want to deal with the transportation bill before the mid-term elections?

3. The not-so-secret secret is that there's just not enough money under the current system, and no one wants to change the system. For most surface transportation (not air) the funding comes from the Highway Trust Fund, i.e. the federal gas tax. And there just isn't enough money coming in to pay for all the programs - mostly roads - that the American public wants.

(And please spare me any talk that getting rid of "frills" like Safe Routes to School, bike and pedestrian programs, or CMAQ will solve this problem. Those programs are such a tiny sliver of all the federal funding that they can't even be seen on the pie chart. It's like trying to solve the federal budget deficit by getting rid of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)

No elected official, right, left, center, or anywhere in between, wants to raise the gas tax. But the federal gas tax hasn't been changed for almost 20 years - since 1993. To make matters worse, the gas tax is based on volume, not a percentage of sales, that is, you are paying the same tax in April 2011, when gas is averaging $3.80/gal as you were in 1993, when gas was averaging $1.10/gal.

Cars are getting more fuel efficient, but people are driving way more than they were in 1993, and they are demanding bigger, smoother, faster roads, and those cost buckets, nay barges full of money. The gas tax at 18.4 cents/gal just isn't going to cut it. All those roads that we have been building for the last 55 years - since we started building the Interstate Highway System in 1956 and launched the car-based society - are falling apart. They need to be fixed, but at the same time we are all demanding that new roads be built, or current roads expanded.

There is simply no way that we can continue with this system unless the gas tax is raised. Many people, myself included, will argue that continuing to plan for a car-based system for personal travel is an insane idea for all sorts of reasons. But it has taken us decades to get into this mess, and it is not going to be solved overnight. We need a transition plan until we can build a transportation system that allows people to live their daily lives without getting in a car every day. Individuals, families, businesses, and communities are also going to have to make some changes to move away from a car-based transportation and planning mindset.

And it is going to cost money to build that system. So we need to raise the federal gas tax but also start looking at other sources of funding for mass transit, intercity rail, upgrades to freight rail, and multi-modal facilities.

Although no elected official wants to "raise taxes," because they are afraid it will stall the economy (or they won't get re-elected), we could raise the gas tax by a nickel a year for the next 10 years, and no one would notice it in the price they pay at the pump! Sure, the media would make sure everyone knows the tax is going up, but with the volatility in gas prices, the federal tax is a drop in the oil drum. Besides, gas taxes are user fees, and aren't conservatives usually all for making people pay for what they use?

So, raise the federal gas tax. Two cents a year for the next 10 years would keep things going the way they are. Five cents a year for the ten years might actually allow us to start building a transportation system with some choices for those that don't want to drive everywhere, and in addition provide a tiny disincentive to drive so much. Gas prices have jumped 20 cents in the last week, and 75 cents since January 1. Does anyone think people are going to notice a nickel a gallon?

Fish Hatchery Rd rebuild in 2012: Will bike and pedestrian conditions improve?

A quick post about a projects that could improve bicycling south of downtown and the campus significantly, or could just lay new pavement over a crumbling section of roadway.

Below is an email conversation about this project. In the initial email to the Bikies list, I had cc'd a few people who I thought could either provide answers, or should be aware of problems in this corridor. The second email is from Tony Fernandez, of City of Madison Engineering. I'm not sure if he is directly involved in the project, but he at least has knowledge of it, and was trying to provide some info. Much appreciated.

The third email was my response to Tony, which also got cc'd to the same group, plus Christy Bachman, who Tony had identified as the person taking the lead for the City. This is a Dane County project, so the City of Madison neither planned the project nor has direct authority, although I'm assuming they had significant input because the majority of the roadway is in the City.

I haven't heard anything from the County yet, so maybe things are better than I think.

Email #1 - from me.

There was an article in today's Cap Times about the 2012 planned rebuilding of Fish Hatchery Rd from Wingra Dr south to West Badger Rd. 

Most people on this list recognize that this stretch, although equipped with bike lanes, is an unpleasant ride, and often downright scary. Much of the problem stems from potholes and cracked pavement on the far right (the bike lane), but also the amount of trash, debris, sand, and general junk that lands in the bike lane. 

I also think that, given the amount and speed of traffic - normally far over the speed limit - the current width of the bike lanes is too narrow.

Did anyone attend the meeting mentioned in the article? Will the current conditions be improved when the project is done? Obviously, new pavement will be a huge improvement, but are there any other changes planned? 

And while the project is ongoing, will there be some accommodations for those bicyclists that still need to use Fish Hatchery to get around? Due to the Arb on the west and the lack of north-south routes to the east between Fish Hatch and Park, Fish Hatchery Rd is often the only option in this area. 

I have cc'd a cross section of City of Madison, Dane County, and Bike Fed folks. The road is in the City (mostly, although there are sections in Town of Madison), but Dane County is doing the project, since it is a county highway. 

Thanks for any info. I'm sure many people on the list would be interested in any insights.

Response from Tony Fernandez

This is a federally funded pavement replacement project. Dane County is the lead agency and Matt Rice is doing the plans. My supervisor Christy Bachmann is the main liaison for the City of Madison. My understanding is that the type of funding pretty much restricts the project to replacing the existing pavement, and the current plans call for bike lanes for the full length of the project, but no significant widening anywhere. To get the latest information about the current design and any planned public involvement activities or other opportunities for input you should probably contact Matt or Pam Dunphy at Dane County Highways.

Email #3 - from me

I didn't expect widening, but perhaps a change in the location or width of paint? Don't know the width of the curb-to-curb, but since traffic is consistently well above the speed limit, I would imagine the MV lane widths are pretty generous. Might a little narrowing of the other lanes - by even 6 inches - allow a slightly wider bike lane and also slow the average speed? As Mike Rewey has repeatedly pointed out, just making sure that the 6 inch bike lane marking starts in the MV lane, and does not cut off 6 inches of the bike lane makes a big difference.

I also posted the questions to nudge the folks in charge of maintenance (sweeping on a road next to the Arb, anyone?) to perhaps be more diligent when the project is done. The Fish Hatchery corridor suffers from a multitude of issues that make it a crappy bike route, but there is really no alternative. Fast traffic (law enforcement and engineering); higher traffic volumes; ugly, car-based land use (planning); and a multi-jurisdictional roadway leads to poor maintenance.  Because Fish Hatchery is so huge south of the Beltline, and also a major exit off the Beltline, it feels like a fast highway, but it is actually an urban roadway - one that passes through several neighborhoods with a high percentage of low-income resident. There is also a middle school, the Arb, and a large health care facility in this stretch. 

Because it feels like a highway, drivers are less sympathetic to bicyclists and pedestrians in the area (and public right of way), because they wonder why anyone would be on foot or bike on this big, fast road. Well, there really isn't much choice.

So, I think with a rebuilding project, even without changing the curbs, there are a few things that could be changed to make this road more bike and pedestrian friendly. Hey, how about painting the few crosswalks with wider markings too? I hear from lots of kids and parents trying to cross that street to get to Wright Middle School. 

Sorry, this really isn't a rant against anyone in particular, but more a plea that maybe something can still be done to improve the situation. I was really hoping to hear, "Yes! We are doing those things. We know it sucks, and we took all that into consideration, and here's how it will be different when the work is done." 

Still hoping. 

B Cycle in Madison - Let's do it!

So, Madison is finally getting a bike sharing program. That is, as long as the deal with Trek (primary partner in B Cycle) and the City can actually get their deal through the Council tonight. It's a great deal for Madison, and also a great program in general. I'm not thrilled with how fast it is moving through the city process, in part because it makes people suspicious and doesn't leave enough time to properly get questions answered. But it really would be a shame if the program failed or didn't get approved.

Short car trips, like those that can easily replaced by using a bike sharing program, are very dirty, polluting trips. Cars don't really operate efficiently until they warmed up, and this can take around five minutes or five miles of driving. But most trips in the US are less than five miles. As a matter of fact, 40% of trips are two miles or less, a distance easily covered by bike. And our downtown and campus area are already crowded and not efficiently negotiated by car. Yet not everyone has a bike, or has it with them all the time. If it was easier to make some of these short trips without using a car, it would be good for our air and our roads would be less congested. And maybe you'd be able to find a parking spot closer to your destination.

So making bikes available to people that already have them at hand would help solve some of these urban issues.

Of course, I've been reading lots of news and blog posts on this subject, and many people have questions, misconceptions, or outright incorrect information. Below I'm going to try to get some of these answered, corrected, or debunked.

As to how this all came about, whether it should be rushed through, and whether proper city process was followed, I'm not going to comment. I really don't want to support the way this project is moving through the city process. It was poorly handled, and that's all I'm going to say as my feelings on that subject. I'm just hoping to provide some information as a person that thinks bike sharing is good in general, and has done more research on various bike sharing programs than the average person.

You can read two of my past posts on bike sharing in Madison – both what I felt were the barriers and a history of a different kind of bike sharing, at the links above.

First, there are a couple of places to go to get more information about the program in general and the specifics about the Madison proposal. The Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission had a meeting last week where a representative from B Cycle, as well as a couple of city staff people came to present the program. You can watch the whole meeting at the link above. Most of the meeting was devoted to the B Cycle proposal, so you shouldn't have to search much to find that topic. Unfortunately, some incorrect or incomplete information came out via this meeting, and as chair, I was not able to answer the questions. (We also got kicked out of the room because the County had failed to put one of their meetings on the room schedule, and they own the room, so the discussion was cut short.)

You can also read the B Cycle FAQ sheet prepared for the Feb 1 Council meeting. It has answers from Trek/B Cycle. Some of the same questions are answered below, but I wanted to add more information or put the answers in my own words. If you want to see all the documents that the Council will see, you can access that item via Legistar, the city's legislative software. Just click the various links under “attachments.”

Why does the city provide space for a private business to use our public space? Why isn't Trek paying for use of the sidewalks, streets, parks, or other public space?

A bike sharing program is part of the transportation system of the city, just like private cars, delivery trucks, van pools, parking lots, buses, sidewalks, roads, paths, intercity buses, taxis, (in other cities) trains/light rail, and various other elements. Each of elements gets some subsidy from the city. Local roads are paid for almost entirely by local property taxes, and buses receive lots of property tax support as well, so those are obvious. But even the Parking Utility, which received all its revenues from user fees (parking fees), gets to use valuable land in our downtown without paying real value of that land. Can you imagine how much property taxes the city could generate if a 6-8 story condo or office building was built on any of the lots that now house our parking ramps?

Even taxi stands and intercity buses – both private, for-profit businesses – get special spots on the street for them to use. Bus loading zones and taxi stands could instead be revenue-generating parking spots, but we see it as in the interest of the city as a whole to provide spots for these businesses to operate on our public streets. Loading zones for delivery vehicles are the same model. These are private businesses, servicing other private businesses, and yet we reserve precious space on our streets to allow them to operate.

Why is the city giving any money to Trek/B Cycle to put this system in place? Why does it require a subsidy for a for-profit business?

The city provides many services that benefit private businesses. Besides the examples above, look at the subsidy that it provides to the Convention and Visitors' Bureau. We pay for them to market the city, because we figure the money will, come back to us in the form of more jobs, greater room tax, and increased property taxes. (Since the city doesn't collect income tax or sales tax, I've always wondered exactly how the hotel and restaurant jobs generated by business travel actually benefit the city financially, except that the city is generally a better place when more people are working.)

The city also has an economic development staff, again to help businesses in the city.

And let's not forget that providing parking via a city utility, even if it is supported by user fees, is a huge subsidy to the businesses – retail, residential developers, office developers, etc – that are located downtown. As noted above, the city could sell that land, allow the parking ramps to be torn down, and let the private market decide when and where parking would be available to different users. The private market could also set the price based on time of day, demand, or convenience. The city could get a one-time influx of money by selling the land, and then they could collect all those increased property taxes as well. But the decision has been made that providing a publicly run system of parking facilities is in the city's interest.

OK, but then why not allow a private company to run another type of transportation system using the public space? Like, maybe a bike sharing program.

How come there wasn't an RFP? Wouldn't other companies like to bud to offer the same product?

I admit, now we are getting into the process questions, but I can tell you what the official answer is, from the Mayor and City Attorney, based on the information Trek provided. B Cycle is the only company in the US (maybe the world, but I haven't checked) that not only provides the physical infrastructure – bikes, financial kiosks, parking/security for the bikes, etc – but also is offering to run the program, including maintaining the bikes, moving them around if too many get bunched up in one place – called “rebalancing,” taking care of the financial transactions, memberships, marketing, legal liability – in case someone sues because they fall off the bike, etc., data collection, and other parts of the operation of the system. In other cities, either the city, a non-profit, or a for-profit company actually operates the system, once it has been purchased from Trek.

I know something about bike sharing programs, and I believe it when city staff and Trek claim they are the only ones offering this whole package. There aren't many bike sharing providers in North America to begin with. Bixi operates in Montreal. Their home page doesn't seem to have anything about other locations, although according to this article, they also developed the systems in Minneapolis and Toronto. Smart Bikes operates in DC, as a partnership between the DC Department of Transportation and Clear Channel. Then there is B Cycle, which is the system in Denver, Des Moines, Louisville, San Antonio, and Ft. Lauderdale.

There are a few smaller programs being operated either on college campuses or private businesses with large corporate campuses. The bikes used are almost always heavy, specialized, utilitarian bikes, not your standard off the shelf model.

The truth is, except for Bixi and B Cycle, no one else is developing systems in multiple places. For an all-in-one, B Cycle is the only company, and Madison will be the first place they have run the system as well as developed it.

What about advertising?

The resolution states that all the bikes and kiosks must meet the current advertising regulations for the city. Several alder, most strenuously Alder Mike Verveer, have pointed out that Madison has been very strict about advertising in the downtown area. We don't have it in our bus shelters, and he has pledged to oppose it in this instance as well.

This will be interesting, because the model around the world has been that considerable revenue has been generated by the advertising on the bikes and the actual kiosks. Note above how the Washington, DC system is a partnership between the DC DOT and Clear Channel? Clear Channel is essentially underwriting the system in exchange for an exclusive advertising contract for not just the bike sharing system, but also the buses and bus shelters in DC.

Won't people that want to ride a bike just use their own?

Bike sharing programs are not aimed at people that bike to work/school anyway, they are aimed at people that don't have their bikes with them, but want to make a short trip. Examples of the potential market are:

• State employee that take a van pool to work
• People that take the bus to work
• Carpoolers
• Even drivers that want to make a short trip, but don't want to drive.
• Regular bicyclists that for whatever reason don't have their bike with them.
• Downtown dwellers that don't own a bike, but want to borrow one.

Where are these customers going, and why would they use a B Cycle?

• To meet a friend or spouse at the Kohl Center for a basketball game. S/he may get to work with one mode, take the B Cycle to the Kohl Center, and then get a ride home.
• Bike from the Capitol area to campus for a meeting. This is just a bit too far to walk, if you are pressed for time, but driving really isn't fast either, because of traffic and parking.
• Run errands at lunch or after work, or get to lunch by bike.
• Go to meetings within a couple of miles. Biking is often faster than driving, and definitely faster than the bus or walking.
• Visitors that come to Madison without a car, or just want to bike somewhere. The Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau estimates that 20% of visitors don't have a car while in Madison.
• Get somewhere when the buses aren't running frequently. Weekends, holidays, evening it might be 30-60 minutes between buses, but the bike is there for that trip to Willy St.

Other information: It's a great deal!

These systems generally cost well over $1 million to get up and running, and then possibly over a million dollars each year in operations. As with any other business, it takes awhile to not only work out all the bugs, but to also get the program on firm financial ground. Trek is offering this system, fully installed, operational, and maintained, for a pretty small financial commitment. It's a huge gift that is requiring very little on the part of the city. Think of the $810 million train that got thrown away by our governor, and how stupid that looked. It's that sort of deal for the city.

Why would Trek do this? Well, part of it really is a belief in Madison and a desire to make their (sort of) hometown as great as it can be. Trek believes in biking, and they want Madison to be a showcase for how biking can benefit a city.

But there is something in this for Trek as well, besides good PR. Trek holds a bike show/convention in Madison every year – Trek World. All the other bike companies, associated businesses, suppliers, and dealers go to a different show in Las Vegas, but Trek has their own show at Monona Terrace. I'm assuming that Trek would like to show off this system to other cities, advocates, dealers, and others right on their home turf. This system is a rolling, operational advertisement for one of their divisions. Since they have never been the operator, as well as the developer of this program, Madison will be the test case.

That's cool, I have no problem with Trek using Madison to show off their best ideas. It's good for the city, and it's good for Trek. Doesn't everyone want a win-win?