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.

PGA-only interchange on I-43 - your money at work

When people complain about things like bike and pedestrian facilities, or the cost of building or maintaining transit systems - including local and intercity rail - I shake my head. These people rarely have any idea how much of their tax dollars are spent to build and maintain the roads they drive on every day.

Even worse are people who say, "I'll never use that [path, bus line, train, station, etc.], so I shouldn't have to pay for it."

Well, here's something I can guarantee you I will never use, and yet my tax dollars are paying for it. The PGA tournament and Whistling Straits course in Kohler apparently has enough political pull to get their own private interchange, open only a few weeks of the year, and only every five year. Seriously?! This is what the Wisconsin DOT has as a priority? The Zoo Interchange is falling apart, the bridge between MN and WI at Winona has new cracks [although that's MNDOT's problem], Mike Sheridan wants a bigger I-39/90 to Beloit, and they are building an interchange for the golf fans?

Cost, shared by the Kohler Co. and you, the Wisconsin taxpayer: $671,000. How much is your share?

The assumption of driving everywhere

Boy, I hate being up at 8:00 AM. I am not a morning person, and now I don't feel so bad about it. A recent study found that there really are “morning people” and “night people.” And the same study found out that night people were alert and productive more hours of the day, regardless of what time they actually got up and started working. So there. I may sleep late every day, but I'm getting plenty of work done.

Why am I bringing up this gripe about being up early? Because I am at a conference on campus at 8:00 AM this morning, and it's making me grumpy. But this conference is the lead-in to my topic today: Even groups that promote physical activity as an important part of preventing obesity and its accompanying health problems assume everyone will be driving everywhere.

For a number of years, I have been working with a statewide group on overweight and obesity issues. The Wisconsin Partnership on Activity and Nutrition (WIPAN) is a CDC-funded effort to address these issues. Today this coalition is meeting on campus with a UW group with a similar mission, WIPOD.

For the first few years I felt like my role in WIPAN was to show up and say, "How you construct your community affects physical activity!" Most of the people initially involved were public health professional and health researchers. They all knew that increased physical activity can prevent all sorts of health problems, but few seemed to connect our transportation choices and built environment with whether people were getting the recommended amount of physical activity. At the national level, the CDC and Surgeon General were just beginning to talk about the role of the built environment in facilitating or deterring physical activity.

I clearly remember the first time I heard a CDC researcher say that we needed to make our communities more walking and bicycling-friendly. It was at a national conference on walking and bicycling, and I wanted to shout, "Hallelujah!" During the Q&A period, I urged the speaker to take this message to policy makers, because, as I said at the time, "We can say that we need better walking and biking environments, but policy makers think, 'Oh, that's those lycra-clad, environmental, tree-hugging, freaks that want people to drive less.' Which is true, that's who we are, but it doesn't mean we are wrong. But when a respected public health professional or researcher says the same thing, more people are likely to listen."

Eventually, this message got through at both the national and state level, and because I had been pushing for the inclusion of this aspect of policy, they made me the Chair of the Community Design and Physical Activity Committee for WIPAN. We've worked on writing walking points and briefing papers for the local coalitions around the state on such issues as:

• What is an MPO, and why should you care what they are doing?
• How's your local MPO doing with regard to policies to improve physical activity?
• How can you get involved with Safe Routes to School?
• What is Complete Streets, and how do you get your local community to adopt this policy?
• etc.

So, today I was asked to attend this conference to represent WIPAN in a breakout session on the built environment. Because I registered late, the woman who confirmed my registration emailed me to say that, "All the parking permits have been issued, so you'll have to find parking on your own." I emailed back that not only was I not worried about finding a place to park my bike, but I lived within 1/2 mile of the conference site.

I suppose that my answer was unnecessarily snarky - she didn't know that transportation within the campus area really isn't an issue for me - but what struck me was that there is an assumption that everyone at this conference will be arriving car. Here I was about to talk about getting people to be more physically active via walking, biking, and transit, and there is no thought at all about giving participants information on getting to the conference without driving.

Yes, obviously, many people were coming from out of town, so I don't expect them to bike from Green Bay or Milwaukee, but there was NO information for anyone about alternatives to driving to campus. There could have been information on parking off-site and taking the many buses that pass within 1/4 mile of the site. Or even how to walk from the recommended hotel - which is also a short walk from the conference.

This lack of any "directions," except driving directions, to destinations is unbelievably common. On a number of occasions I have asked for transit or biking directions to a destination, both in Madison and other cities, and been met with a blank stare or dead silence.

This is not just a health issue, but also a social and economic justice issue, because people without cars may be trying to access destinations, events, and resources. I hope that more organizers, business owners, and convention and visitors bureaus will make an effort to provide transportation information for people not driving to the destination.

Heads up, transportation geeks! Tues, May 25 is busy.

For those that care about getting around without a car, or cheaply, or in an environmentally sustainable way, or those that just want to have a choice of transportation modes, the evening of Tuesday, May 25 is going to be a busy night.

The Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission (PBMVC) will hold their annual public hearing on needed capital projects to improve the ped-bike network. The public hearing starts at 6:00 PM in Room 260 of the Madison Municipl Bldg. Also at that meeting will be an update on progress on the Platinum City Report, or "How are we doing and what's next?"

Also on Tuesday, at 6:30 PM at Olbrich Gardens, is a neighborhood meeting arranged my Alder Marsha Rummel about the high speed rail corridor through the East Isthmus. Now that we know that the Madison station will be at/near Monona Terrace, everyone has lots of questions about how this is going to work. Although Marsha would like to keep this focused on the neighborhood, and how the corridor will be managed, this is also the first time the Wisconsin DOT will be available to answer questions on this project.

Last night at the Long Range Transportation Plan Commission, we were supposed to talk about how/where/when the city would/could build a multi-modal station - that is one that would handle intercity buses, local buses, and was friendly to walking, biking, taxis, etc. Of course, the discussion mostly focused on the rail station location, problems, and possibilities. Unfortunately, the answer to many of our questions about the station, train operations, intersections upgrades, multi-modal access, etc. was, "We don't know yet." WisDOT is in charge here, and we don't even know how much say the city will have on many of the decisions.

Wisconsin DOT is not known for having the best public participation process. I have been to many "public hearings," and they often consist of WisDOT staff and consultants standing around boards and posters depicting options for a project and answering questions one-on-one. Then the public is encouraged to write down their comments or submit them on-line. There is rarely a Q&A where everyone in the room can hear the questions that people ask, the answers from WisDOT/consultants, and the comments that others have. This public Q&A is important because many people aren't even sure what questions to ask, and hearing the questions, answers, and comments of others helps them sort through often complex issues.

Finally, for those who live, work, or study in the area of UW Hospital, the west campus, Shorewood Hills, or the west end of the Regent Neighborhood, you may want to know about a meeting on the proposed plans for the intersection of University Ave, University Bay Drive, Campus Drive, and Farley St. The meeting will be held at the Shorewood Hills Village Hall from 5:30 - 7:00 PM. This is a very large, and very multi-modal intersection, with lots of people walking and biking through it, as well as about 50,000 cars per day, many of whom are making turns at the intersection. There is also a very busy bus stop, with over a dozen bus lines stopping there. All these bus rides need to cross the intersection, either in the morning or the evening. All these bus riders are also pedestrians when they cross. The Campus Dr Path also ends here, with many bicyclists trying to connect with routes through Shorewood Hills, or crossing to the south side of University to access the Kendall/Bluff bike route. No matter how you travel, if you need to use this intersection on a regular basis, you should think about submitting comments.

Sorry, no link for this meeting, as it doesn't appear to be on the City of Madison web site or the Village or Shorewood Hills. Also, no link to the plans developed by Strand & Assoc (I think), which, last tome I saw them, were less-than-ideal for non-motorized transportation.

Connecting green thumbs with food pantries

Photo courtesy of GetRichSlowly.org

In wandering through the news sites today, I came upon this article on cnn.com about a web site that connects gardeners with extra produce with food pantries that would love to have the abundance of your garden. AmpleHarvest.org allows people with too much bounty in the garden to find a food pantry that can take it off your hands. Almost every home gardener has been in that situation. Too many tomatoes, zucchini, even spinach, beans, and peas can get a little out of control.

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:

• 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.

AAA is not a friend of balanced transportation

On a national bicycle-pedestrian advocates list of which I am a member, there was a discussion about the new, separate bike lane planned for Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, DC, as well as several other downtown streets in Washington. These lanes actually remove space from motorized traffic, and AAA put out a press release with a list of concerns.

The press release came from the Mid-Atlantic chapter of AAA, but there followed a long discussion about working with AAA on various projects, whether a boycott of AAA was warranted. and the coordination between the regional chapters and the national office. [If you want to go to the AAA Mid-Atlantic web site, say to comment, you may need to enter a ZIP code for the Mid-Atlantic area. One for the DC area is 20006, or use any ZIP from DE, MD, DC, VA, NJ, or PA.]

Since you may not be able to easily get into the web site, I will paste it below, so you can read it:

REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC LANES ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FOR BIKE LANES DRAWS IRE OF MOTORISTS

 NEW BIKE LANES COULD MAKE A BAD THING WORSE

IN DOWNTOWN WASHINGTON, SAYS AAA

Protected Bike Lane Project Would Remove Six Miles Of Traffic Lane;

New Bike Lanes Won't Entice District Motorists Out Of Cars, AAA Poll Shows

WASHINGTON, D. C.  (Monday, May 3, 2010) – Pennsylvania Avenue has a new look. Over the weekend, D.C. transportation work crews converted two traffic lanes on “America’s Main Street”  into bike lanes, and, as a result, city traffic could become even more congested in downtown Washington and further increase commuter frustration with insufficient road and highway capacity, warns AAA Mid-Atlantic, which is encouraging commuters and District motorists to voice their concerns about the proposal.

 Bike lanes will also be built on four other major streets in the city’s busiest corridor.

 “If you build it, will they come?” It is unlikely the addition of new bike lanes inWashington’s Central Business District will entice most motorists out of their cars or attract more residents to bicycling to work. That’s according to the findings of AAA Mid-Atlantic’slatest survey of District motorists.

  “Given current levels of motor vehicle traffic in downtown D.C. and the depth of frustration with gridlock during daily work trips, many motorists are wondering why this plan made it to the drawing board in the first place,” cautioned John B. Townsend II, AAA Mid-Atlantic’s Manager of Public and Government Affairs.

 “In the minds of many motorists and commuters this plan abounds with problems. Although they understand that a vibrant city like Washington needs to have a healthy mix of bikers, walkers, motorists and mass transit users, they think this plan is counter-intuitive.”

 If given final approval, the pilot bicycle lane project would remove six miles of traffic lanes along five major thoroughfares in the city’s Central Business District, including two traffic lanes on a mile-long stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue, from the White House to the U. S. Capitol building.

  In addition, one lane of automobile traffic in Northwest Washington will be removed from 9th Street, 15th Street, L Street and M Street, under the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) proposal. The 30-day public comment period for the project closes 12 days from now.

 Polling shows some residents already have some misgivings about the proposal.  In fact, 53 percent of District residents say bike lanes and other added bicycle perks will not make them more likely to bicycle to work on a regular basis, the 2010 AAA Transportation Poll ® shows. Even so, 20 percent of surveyed AAA members in the District said the changes would compel them to become regular bicycle commuters.

 “Downtown Washington experienced the worst congestion in the region during the last decade, previous studies by local transportation planners show,” Townsend noted.  

 “If implemented, this plan could make things worse. Lane closures must be approached with extreme caution to avoid excessive traffic delays and the diversion of motorists into neighborhood streets, increasing cut-through traffic in peak periods.”

 “What’s past is prologue,” providing an object lesson about such impacts,  some D.C. motorists and taxi drivers complain. They still point to the impact of the decision 15 years ago to close a two-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House that carried 29,000 vehicles a day. 

  As predicted, it increased traffic congestion in downtown Washington during rush hours, some critics grouse. The Secret Service closed the six lane avenue from 15th to 17th streets to motor traffic in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Since then, increased security concerns and terror threats have prompted officials to reduce lane width and remove parking spaces around some federal buildings, observed AAA.

 Each inauguration day the 1.2 mile-long stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue down from the United States Capitol building to the White House becomes the “Promenade of Presidents.” It will be retrofitted with a “bicycle facility,” allowing bicyclists to travel down the center median, according to DDOT. Here’s a snapshot of the impacted streets and length of the proposed protected bike lanes:

 o        Pennsylvania Avenue NW from 3rd Street NW to 14th Street NW (1 mile).

o        9th Street NW from Constitution Avenue NW to K Street NW (0.7 mile).

o        15th Street NW from Constitution Avenue NW to W Street NW (2 miles).

o        L Street from 11th Street NW to 25th Street NW (1.3 miles).

o        M Street from 15th Street NW to 29th Street NW (1 mile).

  Under the pilot project, the “barrier-protected” bike lanes will be separated from vehicular traffic by either a lane of parking or buffer zone. Cyclists will still be permitted to travel in regular vehicle travel lanes in Downtown DC.

 “Although bicycling is an increasingly popular way to get to work in the District, the question  is whether the proposal will exacerbate the commute for the vast majority of workers in Downtown Washington, constricting already clogged traffic arterials, and causing even more delays during peak travel periods in the District’s most highly developed area,” the auto club spokesman said.

  “Motorists are concerned that congestion will become even more pronounced because reductions in lane width generally trigger reductions in traffic flow, travel times and capacity. That’s the biggest issue.”

 On average, 2.3 percent of District workers bike to work, according to 2008 data from DDOT. That’s 7,066 bicyclists daily. In contrast, 12 percent walk to work. Even so, 39 percent of employees in the District drive to work alone, while 21 percent ride to their jobs in carpools and vanpools.

 Another 40 percent use some form of mass transit, including Metrorail and Metrobus. Although advocates of bike lanes tout their safety benefits and impact on organizing the flow of traffic, some planners still debate the best approach for adding the lanes to existing roadways, commented Townsend.  

  The proposed bike lane project carries a price tag of $1.2 million and is slated for completion during 2010.  The regional Transportation Planning Board (TPB) has identified the “protected bike lane pilot project” as  one of four “new regionally significant projects” designated for inclusion in the 2010 long-range transportation plan. The 30-day public comment period will end at midnight on Saturday, May 15, 2010. 

  Commuters can submit their comments to the TPB online, or by or by phone at (202) 962-3262 or TDD: (202) 962-3213.  As of Spring 2010, the District boasts a total of 1,200 lane miles, including 44.7 miles of bike lanes and 56 miles of bike trails.  DDOT contends it will evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of the bike lane pilot project before deciding whether to make it permanent.

Several members of the national listserv suggested a boycott of AAA. Others mentioned that AAA in their area had funded helmet give-aways, kids bike classes, and share-the-road messages. There was a bit of back and forth about whether the national office could or should be held responsible for the actions and press releases of the regional offices. There was also discussion of the survey itself, and how AAA appeared to play  with the numbers: The commuter percentages add up to 114.3%; 20% of AAA members said the new bike lanes would entice them to bike to work; even people that might not use the lanes to bike to work might use them for other trips; etc.

Finally, as people debated whether they should boycott their local AAA because of the action of another regionals office, I felt I had to weigh in on why I do not have a AAA membership:

OK, wading in again, here's why I dropped AAA years ago, and why I will not become a member again.

Regardless of what my local chapter or office says, when I sign up as a AAA member, some of that money goes to the national organization. The national office lobbies, and often not in ways that we would like.

It's all fine and good to have share-the-road messages, or give away helmets, or even sponsor LAB classes, but when it comes down to changing the federal/state/local transportation policy, to favor a more balanced transportation system, don't get in their way. Less money for roads and more for transit, walking, and biking? Are you nuts!?

They will play nice if they can get away with sweet (and inexpensive)messages and campaigns, but they will support driving every time, and that means more and bigger roads. Everything else comes second (or third, fourth, or last.)

There is only so much money to go around, and likely less every day. Those few cents we want for better biking? They want those too. Buses and trains? No way, we can't afford those! Pedestrian safety money and complete streets? Only after the big highways get theirs, we'll see if there's any money left over.

When we walk in the door of our state legislature, asking for a change in transportation funding and priorities, or when we ask for a more rational TEA legislation next spring, we better remember who is coming in behind us with buckets of cash. I do not want my money or my name (as a member), used to undo the hard work we have done.

So, no AAA for me, thank you very much. I don't feel like putting any more cash or credibility in their hands.

For those who want the benefits of AAA - roadside assistance, discounts, etc - you can join Better World Club. They will even pick up if your bike gets a flat tire!