No, not city zoning requirements. In Madison, there are no (car) parking requirements in the downtown area. If someone wants to build an apartment building or offices with no parking, they are free to do so.
But I heard a strange story last week, and this article echoes the same problem. A woman wanted to open a store on the Capital Square, but couldn't get a business loan. Why not? Because she had no parking. She wasn't worried about it. There are parking ramps quite close, and thousands of people would pass by her store by bus, foot, or bike every day. But the bank wouldn't give her a loan. No parking, no loan.
But as soon as the city turned the outer lane of the Square into a parking lane, viola! she got her loan. Doesn't matter how the majority of her customers got the the store. Doesn't matter that people get on and off the bus yards away. Doesn't matter if 10,000 people walk by during the Farmers' Market, or bike by as they come and go during the week. No parking in front, no loan.
What this means is that walkable, bikeable, transit friendly areas of the city are being penalized for being accessible and not car-oriented. If one small store couldn't get a loan, think what the restrictions would be for a larger building! [For more on how urban, mixed-use development is being screwed by federal loan rules, see this recent Forbes article.]
Now, most developers of larger buildings will build parking anyway, regardless of how expensive it is, because they think they can't rent out their space - residential, retail, or commercial - without parking on site. But if a brave soul decided that downtown Madison already had enough parking, and more office (or retail, or residential) space was a better thing to build than parking, they would be shut out of loans.
How crazy is that?
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Don't make people pay for parking they don't need
Below is an email I wrote a year ago regarding a development in our neighborhood. I happened to find a printed copy while cleaning out some files, and decided to post it. While this was written about one particular project, it summarizes a problem that is common to many residential developments: Parking is included in the cost of more expensive apartments, and if a resident doesn't need the parking, they have no way of recovering the cost of the parking they are paying for.
Despite what some people think, not everyone owns a car. Especially in urban areas, parking can be quite costly, and no one should be forced to pay for it if they don't want it.
So below is the letter I wrote to city commissions when our neighborhood association wanted to force the developer guarantee a parking spot as part of the rent for all residents. They wanted to avoid more people parking on the streets in the neighborhood, but I thought their concerns were misplaced.
Despite what some people think, not everyone owns a car. Especially in urban areas, parking can be quite costly, and no one should be forced to pay for it if they don't want it.
So below is the letter I wrote to city commissions when our neighborhood association wanted to force the developer guarantee a parking spot as part of the rent for all residents. They wanted to avoid more people parking on the streets in the neighborhood, but I thought their concerns were misplaced.
I know I may be in the minority among the people you hear from, but I will reiterate what I said at the meeting Monday night. Requiring all tenants to pay for a parking spot, whether they own a car or not, is both unfair, and bad for the neighborhood. If [the project] includes a parking spot with every apartment, you are forcing people to pay for something they don't need, don't want, and won't use. And it's not a community asset, like a green roof, patio, or work out room, that tenants may or may not use. A parking spot adds significantly to the cost of an apartment, so makes the apartment less affordable.
It also makes the apartment only attractive to those who own cars. Is that what [the neighborhood] wants? Is that good for the neighborhood? Do we want to only have drivers and car owners moving into an already crowded area? I don't think so.
To make sure I had my facts straight, I checked with [a representative of the developer.] They do not want to allow tenants to reassign the spot - the one they are required to pay for - to a friend, work colleague, or other party. Tenants would not be able to resell or rent the spot to someone else. [The building owners] considers that too much of a security risk.
So the expensive parking spot included with the apartment will not only be unused by the tenant, but will not be able to be used to get one more car off the neighborhood streets during the day. Again, is this in the interest of the neighborhood?
So, my request to you is: Do not ask that a parking spot be included with each apartment. It is bad public policy and bad for the neighborhood. If you are determined to require a parking spot be paid for by each tenant, then ask that [the building owners] allow the spots to be reassigned to outside parties. This will be more fair to tenants that do not own cars, and it will also get cars off our neighborhood streets.
As to commercial and visitor parking - i.e. short term parking - as a neighbor that lives one block from the site, I can tell you that there IS parking available on our neighborhood streets, although one might have to walk a block or two. Despite what some think, we live in an urban area, and one cannot expect to park directly in front of one's destination. The streets are a public area, and anyone can use them, including for parking. We have two hour limits during the day, and that's appropriate. I have no problem with commercial customers parking on my block, nor do I think that a lack of commercial or visitor parking will doom the project.
When we visit the Monroe, Atwood, or Williamson St areas, whether to visit friends, shop, or enjoy dinner or a drink, we often have to park on the street, and possibly several blocks away. (OK, Monroe has a parking garage at Trader Joes, but the east side areas do not.) That does not keep us from visiting these areas, nor does it seem to impede the success of businesses. Just as with our neighborhood, these areas were built for and continue to be accessible by foot, bike, and transit. People who live and visit these area expect that parking may be less convenient, but they also enjoy a wonderful neighborhood experience, highlighted by easy, pleasant walking.
Please don't let a few loud voices push you to make suggestions to the city committees that are in opposition to the interests of the neighborhood and the best practices of urban design. Several people have contacted me since the meeting to tell me they agree with me, so I am not alone. We all know that those opposed are often the loudest and most strident, but maybe not the majority.
Monday, September 19, 2011
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.
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:
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
[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.
For more information on the Judge Doyle Square Master Plan process, please go to:
Thank you for your participation! Your input is very important.
[end forwarded message]
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
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.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Random thoughts on a winter walk on University Ave
I'm working on a post about the bike sharing program that will be before the city council tomorrow night, but that is going to be a long post. In the meantime, here are a few thoughts on walking down University Ave this afternoon.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Economic Development Commission (in)action on rail last night
My email to the EDC today. Thought I'd pass it on.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Big roads act as barriers for those not driving
Whenever I hear transportation planners say that they are going to make "improvements" to a road, my first thought is, "improvement for whom?" Something that might make it easier or less congested for drivers on that road might make it much more difficult, or actually impossible for someone to cross that road, especially if that someone is walking or bicycling.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
TIF Review Board: Edgewater, James Madison Park, blight, etc.
OK, I'm going to pull a Brenda and talk about a public meeting. The following may be a bit disjointed, but I don't have time and patience to straighten it out.
First a question: How is TIF going to make landlords maintain their property?
First a question: How is TIF going to make landlords maintain their property?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Zoning to discourage fast food
As part of the Wisconsin State Health Plan, among a long list of actions to encourage better nutrition and more physical activity is a little suggestion that communities consider not allowing fast food outlets in low-income neighborhoods.
Of course, as soon as the story hit the papers, the comments section exploded with outrage. I just happened to be at a meeting at the Department of Health Service - a meeting for the Wisconsin Partnership on Activity and Nutrition - and heard some of the folks involved with the state report bemoaning the fact that this little provision was singled out.
My first thought was that zoning to prohibit certain types of food is pretty tough. But then I came up with a bit of an end-run to the issue. Below is an email I sent out to the statewide coalition working on overweight and obesity issues.
Of course, in true urban areas like Madison and Milwaukee, and the older downtowns of other municipalities, this might not work, and our largest cities are often also locations of large low-income populations, but it's a start.
Of course, as soon as the story hit the papers, the comments section exploded with outrage. I just happened to be at a meeting at the Department of Health Service - a meeting for the Wisconsin Partnership on Activity and Nutrition - and heard some of the folks involved with the state report bemoaning the fact that this little provision was singled out.
My first thought was that zoning to prohibit certain types of food is pretty tough. But then I came up with a bit of an end-run to the issue. Below is an email I sent out to the statewide coalition working on overweight and obesity issues.
Of course, in true urban areas like Madison and Milwaukee, and the older downtowns of other municipalities, this might not work, and our largest cities are often also locations of large low-income populations, but it's a start.
Not sure about other areas of the state, but the suggestion in the state health plan to consider zoning to restrict fast food outlets in low income areas certainly created a stir on our local media outlets' forums.
Zoning against a certain type of menu is pretty tough, but I know something that will almost guarantee to keep away the big chains. As a bonus, it will improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, improve air quality, and might even encourage physical activity. What is this magic action?
Prohibit drive-through windows and aisles.
Almost no major fast food chain will build without one (except in heavily urbanized area), so you might be able to nip them in the bud with that alone. Drive-through windows and aisles also add "car space" to your landscape, making the remaining sidewalk and roadway more dangerous for walkers and bicyclists. They also contribute to car idling, which leads to bad air quality in the immediate area. And allowing people to stay in their cars, instead of asking them to walk a few dozen feet discourages physical activity.
Prohibiting drive-through windows and aisles is much easier to zone than the type of food they serve.
Just a hint for those looking for a tool.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Mayor Dave - stop using Edgewater as an example
Note: I wrote this entry back in mid-June, right after the Mayor's State of the City address, and his announcement that he wanted to "fix the development process." I never posted it, because I wanted to add some links, and never got around to looking them up.
Now Bob Dunn has threatened a counter suit to the one questioning the approval process. He's acting like a spoiled kid (again), and that just brought all this Edgewater stuff back. The Cap Times ran an editorial titled, "Coming to a neighborhood near you: less influence." And Marsha Rummel has organized a neighborhood summit this Saturday to talk about the proposals to "fix the process."
So once again, the Edgewater rears its ugly head as example one of "what's wrong with the development process." Well, I think that should stop. Read what I initially wrote back on June 16. I was mad, and still am.
The Mayor wants to "fix the development process." He said this immediately after the Landmarks Commission rejected the Edgewater plan for the first time, and now he has brought it back up in his State of the City speech and at the Economic Development Commission.
He should stop using the Edgewater as an example of a typical Madison process for a development, because it isn't typical, and it just reminds people how that project split the city. The Edgewater process was long and painful for two reasons. It was an expensive, controversial project that had some very good arguments against it (principally breaking just about every TIF rule and rejection twice by the Landmarks Commission), and the process was bungled by the developer and many of his allies.
And let me say right up front that I had no strong feelings about the Edgewater development as a building. My main objection was the TIF process, which violated almost every rule the Council and the Planning Department had put in place to safeguard the Madison taxpayers and make the TIF allocations fair to all applicants. It took a lot of bad faith and arrogance to anger me to the point of disgust about how the public process was being handled.
In my six years as alder and the time since, I have never seen a development handled so poorly. The list of missteps is far too long to enumerate here, but starts with the public involvement. It was clear from the start that the developer had no respect for public opinion, and he resorted to astroturf support when people spoke out against him. When the developer presented his plans to the public, he was sure that he would prevail, because he had lined up all the correct supporters behind the scenes, as is common in large cities where he is accustomed to operating.
The problem is that most of the Madison decision makers actually have respect for the public process, and they rebelled at the back room dealings that were going on. The citizens that volunteer their time on city commissions, city staff, and the immediate neighbors were disrespected and dismissed. City staff won't complain in public, because they have too much professionalism, but I was appalled by what I heard "off the record."
The Edgewater process amounted to dragging an unhappy, sick kid, kicking and screaming, to a folk or classical concert you want to see. You got the kid to the physical location you wanted, and you are there to see the concert, but the kid is going to disturb everyone else at the event, make them sick, make them hate you for bringing the kid, and piss off the kid as well. Then you complain that you didn't enjoy the concert, and the sound wasn't very good.
At some point you have to say, "Is this really a good idea?" Perhaps the Edgewater had so many problems, not because the Madison development process is broken, but because it isn't a good project, and the developers screwed up the process themselves.
Mayor Dave - stop using the Edgewater as an example. How about looking at how smoothly the Target and the moderate-income housing next to it created barely a ripple. What about all the projects that were passed in your first six years? Even in this economy, there is construction almost everywhere you look (except the periphery, and I don't mind seeing sprawl stall a bit.)
If you want to reform the development process, look a bit beyond the last time someone stood up and said, "No." Look at all the times they said, "Yes," and see what made those projects so easy.
So once again, the Edgewater rears its ugly head as example one of "what's wrong with the development process." Well, I think that should stop. Read what I initially wrote back on June 16. I was mad, and still am.
The Mayor wants to "fix the development process." He said this immediately after the Landmarks Commission rejected the Edgewater plan for the first time, and now he has brought it back up in his State of the City speech and at the Economic Development Commission.
He should stop using the Edgewater as an example of a typical Madison process for a development, because it isn't typical, and it just reminds people how that project split the city. The Edgewater process was long and painful for two reasons. It was an expensive, controversial project that had some very good arguments against it (principally breaking just about every TIF rule and rejection twice by the Landmarks Commission), and the process was bungled by the developer and many of his allies.
And let me say right up front that I had no strong feelings about the Edgewater development as a building. My main objection was the TIF process, which violated almost every rule the Council and the Planning Department had put in place to safeguard the Madison taxpayers and make the TIF allocations fair to all applicants. It took a lot of bad faith and arrogance to anger me to the point of disgust about how the public process was being handled.
In my six years as alder and the time since, I have never seen a development handled so poorly. The list of missteps is far too long to enumerate here, but starts with the public involvement. It was clear from the start that the developer had no respect for public opinion, and he resorted to astroturf support when people spoke out against him. When the developer presented his plans to the public, he was sure that he would prevail, because he had lined up all the correct supporters behind the scenes, as is common in large cities where he is accustomed to operating.
The problem is that most of the Madison decision makers actually have respect for the public process, and they rebelled at the back room dealings that were going on. The citizens that volunteer their time on city commissions, city staff, and the immediate neighbors were disrespected and dismissed. City staff won't complain in public, because they have too much professionalism, but I was appalled by what I heard "off the record."
The Edgewater process amounted to dragging an unhappy, sick kid, kicking and screaming, to a folk or classical concert you want to see. You got the kid to the physical location you wanted, and you are there to see the concert, but the kid is going to disturb everyone else at the event, make them sick, make them hate you for bringing the kid, and piss off the kid as well. Then you complain that you didn't enjoy the concert, and the sound wasn't very good.
At some point you have to say, "Is this really a good idea?" Perhaps the Edgewater had so many problems, not because the Madison development process is broken, but because it isn't a good project, and the developers screwed up the process themselves.
Mayor Dave - stop using the Edgewater as an example. How about looking at how smoothly the Target and the moderate-income housing next to it created barely a ripple. What about all the projects that were passed in your first six years? Even in this economy, there is construction almost everywhere you look (except the periphery, and I don't mind seeing sprawl stall a bit.)
If you want to reform the development process, look a bit beyond the last time someone stood up and said, "No." Look at all the times they said, "Yes," and see what made those projects so easy.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Residential parking - contradictions abound
Yet again, my neighborhood is having a discussion about parking in a newly proposed residential building. People seem to want parking to be included in the rent (or purchase price) of each unit. This is because they think that if parking is not included with the rent, the residents will park on the already crowded streets. Living in a pre-WII neighborhood, close to the UW campus and hospitals, with a high school up the street, and lots of apartments, it is sometimes it can be a challenge to find parking. So people don't want more people parking in the same crowded area.
At the same time, people don't want lots of extra traffic on their streets and in the neighborhood. What they fail to realize is that, if you include parking in the rent, you will only attract residents that have cars. And people with cars tend to drive them. Trust me, I am one of those people, despite trying to drive as little as possible.
If you sell parking separately, the apartments become financially attractive for people that don't won cars, or only own one car for two people. That means less cars, less traffic, and less parking problems for everyone.
The same type of contradiction comes up when the UW is building on campus, or a new office or apartment is proposed. Half the people in my neighborhood argue for less parking on campus, or keeping the number of spots the same, because they don't want more people driving through the neighborhood to get to that parking. The other half ask for more parking on campus, so people won't park in the neighborhood. I swear, sometimes the same people say different things on different days.
My neighborhood only allows two hours of parking during the day unless you have a residential permit. These permits are only available to people that live in the area, and many apartments dwellers are not allowed to get them anyway.
People who complain about the parking in the area are generally homeowners. They chose to buy a house without enough parking for their needs. Whose fault is that? For the record, I did not own a car myself when I bought my house, and now own one car. I also have one off-street parking spot, so my parking demand exactly matches what I own. If you own more cars than you have space to park them off-street, not on ly shouldn't you be complaining, you are part of the problem.
At the same time, people don't want lots of extra traffic on their streets and in the neighborhood. What they fail to realize is that, if you include parking in the rent, you will only attract residents that have cars. And people with cars tend to drive them. Trust me, I am one of those people, despite trying to drive as little as possible.
If you sell parking separately, the apartments become financially attractive for people that don't won cars, or only own one car for two people. That means less cars, less traffic, and less parking problems for everyone.
The same type of contradiction comes up when the UW is building on campus, or a new office or apartment is proposed. Half the people in my neighborhood argue for less parking on campus, or keeping the number of spots the same, because they don't want more people driving through the neighborhood to get to that parking. The other half ask for more parking on campus, so people won't park in the neighborhood. I swear, sometimes the same people say different things on different days.
My neighborhood only allows two hours of parking during the day unless you have a residential permit. These permits are only available to people that live in the area, and many apartments dwellers are not allowed to get them anyway.
People who complain about the parking in the area are generally homeowners. They chose to buy a house without enough parking for their needs. Whose fault is that? For the record, I did not own a car myself when I bought my house, and now own one car. I also have one off-street parking spot, so my parking demand exactly matches what I own. If you own more cars than you have space to park them off-street, not on ly shouldn't you be complaining, you are part of the problem.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Transportation issues on Brenda's WYOU program
A few weeks back, I taped a segment for Brenda Konkel's program on WYOU. If you want to watch it, you can view it here.
As you can guess, the topic was transportation. This was taped before the decision was made on the location of the high speed rail stop, so portion of the program talked about the pros and cons of the options, how the decision was being made, etc.
But we also talked about a wide range of other issues and topics, including:
And many more topics.
I noticed a few slips on my part, like when I talked about the high speed rail line, and mentioned that many people travel between Milwaukee and "Chicago" several times per week, when I meant to say Milwaukee and Madison. Oh, well, in general I think it went pretty well. Brenda asks really good questions, and lets her guests get into the meat of the issues. That's rare for an interview.
As you can guess, the topic was transportation. This was taped before the decision was made on the location of the high speed rail stop, so portion of the program talked about the pros and cons of the options, how the decision was being made, etc.
But we also talked about a wide range of other issues and topics, including:
- Why transportation can make or break affordable housing.
- What is a multi-modal station, and why should be build one in Madison?
- What happened with the "find the Greyhound stop" game?
- What is a bike station, and where would they work in Madison?
- What's up with the RTA? Why it's not just about trains.
- What is bus rapid transit?
- How does the city decide what roads are going to be built? What's the TIP?
And many more topics.
I noticed a few slips on my part, like when I talked about the high speed rail line, and mentioned that many people travel between Milwaukee and "Chicago" several times per week, when I meant to say Milwaukee and Madison. Oh, well, in general I think it went pretty well. Brenda asks really good questions, and lets her guests get into the meat of the issues. That's rare for an interview.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Two articles on SE Wisconsin rail. Same paper, different angles.
Does anyone else find this juxtaposition strange? Today's Daily Reporter, a pro-labor union paper carried two stories about SE Wisconsin, both mentioning development and the KRM train, the proposed Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee train line that would be an extension of the popular Metra line that runs through Chicago's northern suburbs.
That line currently stops in Kenosha, and there is no train service from Racine or Kenosha to Milwaukee. The closest train is in Sturtevant, WI, west of Mt. Pleasant. That is the Hiawatha line that runs six times per day between Chicago and Milwaukee. (And makes money, by the way.)
To relieve congestion on I-94, the KRM was proposed as an alternative, but its future is in doubt, since the Wisconsin Legislature finished it's session without passing taxing authority for the SE Wisconsin RTA.
So today, one article, "Waiting for Change," talks about the transition, actual or possible, or SE Wisconsin to less a manufacturing base and more a series of bedroom communities for Chicago and Milwaukee, especially Chicago. It prominently mentions the KRM as both a transportation option and a development tool.
And then another article today, "Fighting Over the Railroad," talks about both legislative efforts to pass the RTA legislation and local resistance to kicking in funds.
It also talks about the development that could come with the KRM line, however one commentator misses the point.
However, that isn't going to happen for awhile now.
That line currently stops in Kenosha, and there is no train service from Racine or Kenosha to Milwaukee. The closest train is in Sturtevant, WI, west of Mt. Pleasant. That is the Hiawatha line that runs six times per day between Chicago and Milwaukee. (And makes money, by the way.)
To relieve congestion on I-94, the KRM was proposed as an alternative, but its future is in doubt, since the Wisconsin Legislature finished it's session without passing taxing authority for the SE Wisconsin RTA.
So today, one article, "Waiting for Change," talks about the transition, actual or possible, or SE Wisconsin to less a manufacturing base and more a series of bedroom communities for Chicago and Milwaukee, especially Chicago. It prominently mentions the KRM as both a transportation option and a development tool.
And then another article today, "Fighting Over the Railroad," talks about both legislative efforts to pass the RTA legislation and local resistance to kicking in funds.
It also talks about the development that could come with the KRM line, however one commentator misses the point.
“Kenosha has had commuter rail to Chicago for 20-plus years,” Kisley said. “There’s no development there.”What he fails to see is that the KRM would allow people to travel into Milwaukee, a much shorter trip than Chicago. Sure, as the first article points out, many people are willing to travel all the way from Kenosha to Chicago to get cheaper housing, lower taxes, and lake access. But think what an extension of that same lien would do for Racine and Kenosha if people could quickly and conveniently get to Milwaukee as well.
Kisley said his group, along with other taxpayer groups such as the Racine Taxed Enough Already Party, will continue to oppose the project and pressure legislators.
However, that isn't going to happen for awhile now.
As a former developer, Racine Mayor John Dickert said he experienced an immediate effect when the state Assembly effectively killed the KRM project in 2008. He said he had been working on $40 million worth of developments, only to have the deals fall through because the KRM did not move forward.Oh, well, I guess Racine and Kenosha just aren't ready to grab the opportunities in front of them.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
One community not willing to spend local dollars for bigger roads
Here's one answer to yesterday's question, which asked, "What road projects would be funded if citizens voted on each capital project?"
Apparently, the citizens of Franklin, WI desperately want a new interchange with I-94 to bring more people and traffic into their community. They say that it will help Northwestern Mutual expand, which will bring additional tax revenues for the city. Their share would be $500,000 out of a total $12.9 million project. But they don't want this interchange enough to pony up the money from local funds. They want others to pay their share. Citizens made it clear that they didn't want this road project to get any of their tax money.
From the article:
Now, I don't know the area. I don't know the economic situation. I don't know if this is a god project or not. But it's clear that the citizens of Franklin feel they would rather lose out on this interchange than put any local funds into it.
So, what would happen in Madison if citizens were asked their thoughts on each road project?
To see what's planned for the next 5 years - with your Property tax dollars - attend the special briefing on Tuesday, May 4, 5:00 PM, in Room 201 of the City-County Bldg. It's not on the City's meeting schedule yet, but I assume it will be, as a quorum of the Council could be present.
Apparently, the citizens of Franklin, WI desperately want a new interchange with I-94 to bring more people and traffic into their community. They say that it will help Northwestern Mutual expand, which will bring additional tax revenues for the city. Their share would be $500,000 out of a total $12.9 million project. But they don't want this interchange enough to pony up the money from local funds. They want others to pay their share. Citizens made it clear that they didn't want this road project to get any of their tax money.
From the article:
Oak Creek this week agreed to spend $4.4 million in tax-incremental financing money on the project, and Northwestern Mutual, which has a building near the site, agreed to give $1.6 million. But that leaves a $500,000 gap in the local share.
Franklin Alderman Tim Solomon said the interchange is too important to Franklin’s future to pass up, especially considering the potential benefit of any Northwestern Mutual expansion.
“Northwestern Mutual spent $2 million in taxes last year,” he said. “Spread that over 10 years, that’s $20 million, and they want this interchange. We need to make this happen.”
But Franklin residents at a Wednesday night Common Council meeting opposed spending city money to fill the gap.
Now, I don't know the area. I don't know the economic situation. I don't know if this is a god project or not. But it's clear that the citizens of Franklin feel they would rather lose out on this interchange than put any local funds into it.
So, what would happen in Madison if citizens were asked their thoughts on each road project?
To see what's planned for the next 5 years - with your Property tax dollars - attend the special briefing on Tuesday, May 4, 5:00 PM, in Room 201 of the City-County Bldg. It's not on the City's meeting schedule yet, but I assume it will be, as a quorum of the Council could be present.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Which capital projects would you vote for/against?
Toady's Cap Times had a letter suggesting that Madison voters be allowed to vote for/against any capital project in excess or $3-4 million. That would be an interesting idea. I wonder which roads people would want to fund?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Thoughts on the Edgewater and city process
Below is a letter I wrote today to a handful of city alders, ones with whom I feel I have a personal relationship. I got several positive reactions, so I thought I'd post it for the general public, at least those out there that know I have a blog, which isn't many. I made one or two editorial and grammatical changes from the original:
Dear former colleagues -
Although I'm sure you are way sick of hearing and talking about the Edgewater, I'm just dropping you a note to let you know where I stand. And I'm not for or against it!
However, I'm very cautious, bordering on suspicious, about how this whole process has happened. When I was on the Council, I was occasionally bullied by people – both by those that wanted something and those inside city government – to vote for (or against) something with which I was not entirely comfortable. This treatment generally made me less likely to support the matter. That's what this feels like.
Whatever you do on Tuesday, or in the future, vote your conscience. You are all smart and thoughtful people, and I hope that you will use those skills, your heart, and hard information you may have to make the right decision.
But on a harsher note, I do not like the constant drum beat of inevitability that this project has maintained. I have been told that decent information and drawing were finally presented at the Landmarks Commission meeting on Monday, but I know that several commissions had asked for specific information in the past - such as rendering as to what the project would look like standing on Langdon or Wisconsin Ave, and not just the lovely close-up of the plaza - and yet never received the requested information. It felt like the developers were so certain that they had this thing in the bag, that they viewed commission meetings as a mere formality, not taking the input or requests of the commission members seriously.
We have a city process for a good reason, and it pains me to see both the developer and the Mayor show disdain for it. Yes, it may take awhile to get projects done in Madison, perhaps longer than in other cities our size. But that is because we value the input of citizens, city staff, neighbors, and others with a real and long lasting interest in the city. We don't make decisions in back rooms; we make them out in the fresh air, so everyone can know what is happening. To hear the Mayor dismiss the Landmarks Commission as, "a handful of unelected individuals," reeks of disrespect. I predict that comment will come back to bite Dave in the butt when the RTA referendum comes around.
So, dear friends and former colleagues, do what you think it right, but don't do it because you feel you have to. Don't do it because the Mayor would be mad. Don't do it because the unions are standing there glaring at you, or the press will write nasty things, or you got angry letters.
I'll be watching Tuesday via City Channel on my computer, with a big bottle of wine. Feel free to email or Face Book comments, ‘cause I can’t see all the boring, frustrating, or funny stuff at home.
Glad I'm not getting all the emails and phone calls,
Robbie
Dear former colleagues -
Although I'm sure you are way sick of hearing and talking about the Edgewater, I'm just dropping you a note to let you know where I stand. And I'm not for or against it!
However, I'm very cautious, bordering on suspicious, about how this whole process has happened. When I was on the Council, I was occasionally bullied by people – both by those that wanted something and those inside city government – to vote for (or against) something with which I was not entirely comfortable. This treatment generally made me less likely to support the matter. That's what this feels like.
Whatever you do on Tuesday, or in the future, vote your conscience. You are all smart and thoughtful people, and I hope that you will use those skills, your heart, and hard information you may have to make the right decision.
But on a harsher note, I do not like the constant drum beat of inevitability that this project has maintained. I have been told that decent information and drawing were finally presented at the Landmarks Commission meeting on Monday, but I know that several commissions had asked for specific information in the past - such as rendering as to what the project would look like standing on Langdon or Wisconsin Ave, and not just the lovely close-up of the plaza - and yet never received the requested information. It felt like the developers were so certain that they had this thing in the bag, that they viewed commission meetings as a mere formality, not taking the input or requests of the commission members seriously.
We have a city process for a good reason, and it pains me to see both the developer and the Mayor show disdain for it. Yes, it may take awhile to get projects done in Madison, perhaps longer than in other cities our size. But that is because we value the input of citizens, city staff, neighbors, and others with a real and long lasting interest in the city. We don't make decisions in back rooms; we make them out in the fresh air, so everyone can know what is happening. To hear the Mayor dismiss the Landmarks Commission as, "a handful of unelected individuals," reeks of disrespect. I predict that comment will come back to bite Dave in the butt when the RTA referendum comes around.
So, dear friends and former colleagues, do what you think it right, but don't do it because you feel you have to. Don't do it because the Mayor would be mad. Don't do it because the unions are standing there glaring at you, or the press will write nasty things, or you got angry letters.
I'll be watching Tuesday via City Channel on my computer, with a big bottle of wine. Feel free to email or Face Book comments, ‘cause I can’t see all the boring, frustrating, or funny stuff at home.
Glad I'm not getting all the emails and phone calls,
Robbie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)