National crises and birthday fundraisers

This was originally posted on Facebook on my birthday, but thought I'd throw it up here to preserve it so I can remember how I felt at the time.

The post below may seem a bit disjointed, but I hope you will forgive my attempt to express a bunch of things that have been rolling around in my mind. And sorry for the length. Once I get going, it’s hard for me to be brief.

The TL;DR: The country sucks right now. I’m upset. Please give to a group in your community that is doing good work. I have some suggestions.
I feel alternating anger, outrage, sadness, confusion, and helplessness at the events of the past ten days. I haven’t posted, because I don’t know what to say. That doesn’t mean I don’t care or am indifferent. The outrage and anger that the protesters across the country are expressing are completely justified. It has been far too long that black and brown people have felt the knee on their necks in our country, both literally and figuratively.

I have a birthday coming up this week, and my friends will probably want to wish me a happy birthday. I can’t tell you how much this means to me during a time when many of us are apart. Social distancing has been hard, and seeing everyone’s well wishes moves me a great deal. Thank you for reaching out. It helps to know one has friends during these dark times.

Facebook encourages us to have a fundraiser for a charity on occasions such as this. But there are too many that are doing good work, so I don’t want to chose one. I but I do want to urge everyone who would send me greetings to contribute to one that does work you care about. Below I have some suggestions, if you want to give to one that I am personally supporting.

In this moment, this country is facing a quadruple crisis, and each piece is intertwined with the others.

We still have a health threat. It has not gone away, despite the more immediate events surrounding and precipitated by the killing of George Floyd, just the most recent in a long line of peaceful black men killed by the police or those claiming self-defense.

The health crisis brought on an economic crisis for many. Even before COVID-19 came to this country, not everyone enjoyed the prosperity that many of our national leaders touted (and I use the term “leaders” loosely, as you will see below.) Now there are millions struggling to pay their rent, find food, and meet their other basic needs. Economic insecurity can also bring on a host of other problems for individuals and families: mental health, frustration, domestic violence, physical health problems, etc.

We have suffered from racial injustices for the entire history of our country, but the killing of George Floyd has been the last straw for many, and protests – both peaceful and otherwise – have roiled our communities. We cannot turn away and pretend this will pass. If we do, we are part of the problem. All of us have a responsibility to make this country a place that is safe and just for people of all races, national backgrounds, incomes, genders, and ages.

Finally, we have a massive political crisis. We are divided in so many ways, and our “leaders” are just stoking it to serve their own needs. Not surprisingly, if you know me, I put this one squarely on Trump and his toady GOP sycophants. They don’t want you to vote, and they don’t want you to think about why we have the injustices in our country. They want you to blame your neighbors and anyone that is different from you. They will come up with any excuse to hold onto power. I’m not even going to start on how bad Trump is: his lack of leadership, empathy, moral compass, or a soul.

But there are bad elected officials all over the country, and they stay in power because good people don’t vote and/or don’t speak up. And because bad leaders try to make it hard for you to vote. This is especially true of disenfranchising the poor, the black and brown, those who don’t speak English or are recent immigrants, and those who are just struggling to keep their head above water. Many of our elected officials and even neighbors don’t want to make it easy for you to vote, because that’s how they hang onto power. Your power is your voice and your vote.

So given all these challenges, here are some groups that I’m supporting. I hope you will pick one and give what you can – and it’s not always money. If you don’t live in Madison, there are lots of similar groups where you live.

Freedom, Inc. This is one of the main groups that has been organizing the protests here in Madison.

ACLU and ACLU Foundation. (The latter is a 501(c)3, if you want your gift to be tax-deductible.) Protecting all of our civil rights and helping people who have had their violated. I almost can’t believe that we have to constantly be on the lookout for our civil rights being threatened, but it seems that’s true more and more these days.

League of Women Voters of Dane County Besides helping register people to vote, and giving people the information they need to make their voice heard in elections, they have taken good positions on social justice and environmental issues.

Second Harvest Food Bank – Providing the most basic needs to people in Dane County. They are overwhelmed with requests for help since people are out of work an struggling.

YWCA – Helping women get back on their feet or be safe when they have nowhere to go.

And there are so many more. Groups that help people threatened with homelessness and eviction. Those that give a safe refuge for women fleeing domestic violence. Resources for immigrants, who may be afraid to speak out when people abuse them. And on and on.

When I started working in the non-profit world, the president of the board of directors for Bike Fed said, “We expect all board members to contribute. But they all have different things to give. Everyone can give something: Work, wealth, or wisdom.” What that means is that some have money to give, others have time, and others have skills they can share to support an organization. I hope everyone can find a way to help their neighborhoods, the causes they care about, and those that are most in need.

When did we start blaming pedestrians for being hit by cars?

A colleague in Montana circulated this article that explains the history of how we view pedestrian fatalities.

It used to be that motorists that hit or killed pedestrians were viewed in the same way as someone who drive a motorcycle down a crowded hallway: That's just not acceptable. You shouldn't operate a large, fast, heavy machine in a place where there are a lot of people.

A typical busy street scene on Sixth Avenue in New York City shows how pedestrians ruled the roadways before automobiles arrived, circa 1903. Via Shorpy.

Now we just expect that pedestrians will stay out of the way of cars.

There are so many good quotes in the article, I won't even start to pick them out. But the old news stories, cartoons, and ads are also well worth the click. It follows the change in our society from drivers needing to watch for pedestrians, through changes in attitudes brought about in part by the auto industry; how traffic controls developed; and the history of traffic safety, including ad campaigns that target unsafe behavior.

In the Netherlands - which arguably has the highest bicycle mode split in the world - there is strict liability on the driver's part if s/he hits a bicyclist or pedestrian. That is, a collision is assumed to be the fault of the driver, and the circumstances when the driver is not considered 100 percent at fault are very narrow.

Strict liability is the law in all but five European Union countries, and there is a campaign to change the law in the UK. In the U.S., we struggle to pass Vulnerable User Laws.

Just after reading that article, I saw two items on our local TV news website about kids being hit by cars. One was a child that rode his bike out into the street from a driveway. And the driver didn't even stop! The other was a child killed when he ran out from between two parked cars. Both happened on residential streets.

Sure, these days, we think, "Well, those parents should watch their kids. The kids should learn that they have to be careful and stay out of the street."

But as the article about the history of pedestrians and motor vehicles in public roadways points out, streets are public spaces, and it used to be that drivers were expected to watch out for other road users, including people walking on the public right of way. We used to realize that kids are to be expected in residential areas.

We even allow drivers to break the law with impunity, as long as it's just a little bit breaking the law. Everyone assumes that "5 over" is OK for speeding, and the police generally won't write a ticket if you are not more than "10 over." If a driver is going below the speed limit, s/he is considered a menace and a freak.

What difference does 5 mph make? Well, a pedestrian hit at 20 mph has a 95 percent chance of surviving. A pedestrian hit at 40 mph has an 15 percent chance of surviving.

30,000 people are killed by motor vehicles every year in the U.S.: drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, passengers, etc. Any other product with that kind of safety record would be pulled from the store shelves within a day. Yet we let the carnage continue year after year. When is will we say, "Enough!"?

From the "less waste" files

A short blog to get back in the habit of writing. [edit: It started as a short blog, but obviously, I am not capable of "short." No jokes about my stature, please.] I've been busy with my work, which also involves quite a bit of writing and social media content, so I've neglected my own writing. But I'm going to try to post shorter pieces just for the sake of getting the thoughts out of my head and on to the page. After all, that's why I write this: To clean out the thoughts rattling around screaming, "Write me down!"

On to a few short items about putting sending less stuff to the landfill. It's sort of a personal challenge to me to see how little stuff I can put in the garbage. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

1. Why is it so difficult for even smart, well-educated, Madisonians - i.e. people who should know how to recycle and why it's important - to figure out how to out a bottle or can in the recycling bin? I work at the UW, and pretty much every hallway has blue bins prominently labeled as "bottles and cans" or ""paper and newspapers" at each end of the hall. There are also recycling bins in many offices and break rooms. Yet I consistently find cans and bottles in the trash.

I'm not going through the trash looking for these things. I'm walking down the hall to the bus, and there outside an office is a small bin to be emptied by the cleaning crew: Plastic shrink wrap from a shipment, take-out container, coffee cup, a few napkins or paper towels, an apple core, and a soda can or bottle. Why? Why is it so tough to put that can or bottle in the container just steps away?

2. On a more positive note, I recently was reminded of Terracycle, a service that will take a lot of items that might either be cluttering up your house or going in the trash. They will turn your trash and clutter into either new items or rehabilitate what you send: Pens that don't work, old shoes, wrappers from energy bars, cereal and cracker bags, Britta filters, toothbrushes and toothpaste tubes, and lots more. It has eased my conscience to be able to bring those things in to work and have a place to recycle them instead of tossing them in the trash, or worse, hanging on to them out of guilt. ("Yeah, that pen doesn't really work very well, but it works sometimes, I shouldn't just throw it out. And that old toothbrush could be used to clean my bike or for other cleaning jobs. I should hang on to that.)

Someone in our office collects all the stuff and sends it in once a month. Terracycle will even send you the shipping label. If you have enough of certain items, you can designate a charity to receive a small donation. I'm sorting through all the old pens that don't work, the worn our shoes, and saving my wrappers to send in.

3. As I was brushing my teeth yesterday, (Why do great ideas always come to us when we can't write them down?) I started thinking about the beer bottle caps I'd been saving for a friend. He had told me that someone he knew was collecting as many types of bottle caps as he could. My friend knows that I like to try out different beers, so I might have a wide variety of breweries I could contribute. So I have a small bar of caps to give to him.

But then I started thinking about all the other bottle caps I'm throwing away. They are metal, so why can't they be recycled? So, being a good researcher, I Googled it. The first page I found was very useful - with photos! It said that metal bottle caps are steel, and can be recycled, but not just thrown into the bin as is. The problem is that they are very small, so they fall through the screens at the sorting center [video of how they sort materials with machines - actually pretty cool] and the caps never make it to the magnet that picks up steel. Recycling Week confirmed the problem and the solution.

But these two pages suggested a solution, which City of Madison Recycling Guru George Dreckmann confirmed is the way to go. (I was sort of proud of the fact that I actually provided him with this solution, which he had not thought of.) Put the caps into a steel can - like the ones that hold soup, tomato sauce, canned veggies, etc. Crimp the top so that the caps don't fall out, and then put that whole thing into the recycling. It's all steel, and that whole can will be picked up by the magnets. Do NOT use an aluminum (soda) can, because that would be mixing different kinds of metal, which is a no-no.

4. Finally, I am constantly amazed by people that stop composting in the winter. I understand not wanting to hike to the back yard in deep snow and bitter cold - both of which I did this morning to reach the compost bin with my just-about-full kitchen container. But on the coldest days, you could just dump it into a bucket outside the back door until the snow melts or the temps get more reasonable. That's what I did every year until I forgot to empty said bucket of ready-to-use compost before winter descended.

And besides, I like being outside, and emptying the compost is a chance to follow the bunny tracks to the back of the yard to where I know they are hiding in the brush pile.

But most people seem to think that they can't compost because everything will freeze. And yes, most of the pile will freeze, but not all of it. You'd be surprised how much of the pile is actually not frozen, sitting there creating heat for whatever critter has crawled in. Besides, it will all thaw out eventually, and then all those coffee grounds, bits of veggies, and stale bread will be ready to start over.

Oh, and one more thing I've started throwing in the compost: Kleenex. I usually get one bad cold a year, usually in winter, and go through almost a whole box of tissues in a short period of time. And then there is the normal nose blowing from dry air and cold outdoor temperatures. Instead of throwing it in the trash, I pile it into the kitchen bins and then the backyard pile.

It all just disappears into the compost. I have yet to find any paper left when I'm ready to throw it into the garden. Corncobs will still be there, along with bits of tough stems and other plant material that takes longer to degrade. But that can just go back into the bin for another round.

The best reply ever to a webinar confirmation

This absolutely has to be the best reply to a webinar confirmation I have ever gotten, even if it wasn't really meant for me.

Last night I was checking my work email, and saw that two messages had popped up. As many people do, I read them in reverse order (latest first). 

The first one had the subject line, "Ignore that last email from me!"

The text was,

Hello,

My blushing apologies! I meant to hit Forward 

on the email I just mistakenly sent you, not 

Reply. Sorry about that.

Hmmm. Curious to see what had been sent by mistake, I saw that the same guy had sent an email a minute before. 

The subject line was, "Oh, yeah, or..."

On opening it, I saw that it was a confirmation from GoToWebinar  - the one that goes out automatically with log-on info when you sign up for a webinar. Since it's a webinar I set up, my name appears in the "From" field.

Just above the standard webinar information was a personal message:


You can sit on my lap in your living room while 
we check this out on your laptop. Vamos a ver. 

Kissology, 
M 



Wow. I never knew people were so excited about our webinars!

Business owner freaks out over bike lanes

Yes, it's been awhile since I posted. But I have a whole folder of thoughts marked "Save for Blog," so maybe I'll get some of them out.

Today's topic is the freak out that the Northside Business Association had about the redesign and re-striping of North Sherman Ave. Commonly called "putting bike lanes on Sherman Ave," even though the safety improvements are going to improve the safety for all users, including drivers.

The vote and the whole debate is now old news, but today one business owner - not even located on Sherman Ave - managed to revive it and piss off the biking community as well.

The owner of New Orleans Take-out, on Fordem Ave banned Alder Marsha Rummel for supporting the project. Reaction was swift on the Bikies list.

I called the west side NOTO, which is pretty close to my house, and asked if I was banned as well, since I sit on two city committees that voted in favor of the project, and I testified in favor. The owner - turns out it's a different owner, despite what the article said - told me no one was banned from his restaurant. He hadn't even read the article, but I think people had already started calling him.

Others called and expressed their displeasure. One wrote:

After his initial diatribe we actually talked.

Among other things, he said his business has been down ever since bike lanes were put on Fordem.  I questioned that since Fordem was always two-lane.  I said perhaps the fact that the mural on the side of the building has deteriorated badly in the last two years and his sign needs work, it looks like he is not open or barely open at best.  He actually said I had a point.
John said he will have something in the Isthmus next week - let's wait and see.

Another person wrote an email to the owner and got this reply:

You are wrong, Bill.  But, the city council running rough-shod overthe city has to stop.  There was no investigation into how this wouldaffect the city.Public safety wasn't an issue. No other solutions were investigatedor discussed.  Their rational was fabricated and there was noeconomic impact statement done.  It will affect property values.  Itwould nice to know how and how much.  I used this incident to wake upthe city to what's going on.  It's time for civic involvement to curbcity council excesses.   I knew that I would take a lot of heat butsomeone has to, "Stop, enough."  The council can't close off one ofonly two ways to get to the north side and not think that it isn'tgoing to affect life on the north side.

I simply couldn't let this response go without an answer. Although I didn't email the owner directly, I posted back on the list - which is widely read by even non-bicyclists because of the number of people and level of public involvement on the list:

I'm not going to argue with this guy, since he obviously has some issues beyond not thinking bike lanes are a good idea. But, he is very wrong on so many points.

1. The city - specifically Traffic Engineering (not the most radical bunch) did investigate other solutions to documented safety issues on Sherman Ave. They tried other solutions for 20 years. 
2. There are documented safety problems - for motorists, pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists. 
3. The City Council was following the recommendations of Traffic Engineering.[pdf] Again, and I say this with affection, "Not the most radical bunch, or known car-haters, IMHO."
4. Every study of this type of roadway redesign has been shown to either have no effect or a positive affect on economic activity along the corridor.
5. This project is not closing off any routes. Traffic Engineering estimates that the same volume of traffic will be able to use Sherman Ave after the re-striping. When you have a four-lane road with no left-turn pockets, the center two lanes become de-facto left-turn lanes, so only the outer lanes can be used for through traffic. Local users - drivers - have said that they worried about being hit from behind when stopped in the left lane to make a turn. This means some people might not even make that left turn into a business. The center turn lane removes this problem and reduces conflict points for left-turning vehicles from seven to two. 
6. Yes, this redesign was put forward twenty years ago by Traffic Engineering to make the road safer for DRIVERS.
7. Civic involvement is how this project got approved. Just because you disagree with the vote doesn't mean that no one listened to you. It just happens that there are others - perhaps even a large majority that disagree with you. 

Whenever I hear doomsday predictions from people that haven't even researched the subject, I always want to ask for a retraction after the horrible results fail to materialize:

• Smoking ban will kill all the bars in Madison! (And before that, "All the restaurants will close if smoking is banned!")

• Big building will lead to massive traffic jams every morning and night!

• Everyone will sell their house or property values will drop if this building gets built!

• Roundabouts will lead to terrible crashes because people don't understand them!

• No one will move into those apartments, and they will all become run down when the project fails economically!

• etc.

[And someone reminded me of one of my favorite, which somehow slipped my mind: "If that bike path is built, crime will soar and housing prices will plummet!" Of course, exactly the opposite is true. Studies have shown that housing prices near paths are almost always higher than comparable houses farther away from paths.]

Every one of the above I have heard in the last ten years, and not one of the dreaded outcomes has happened.

Thanks for clearing your sidewalk!

First, thanks to all who promptly cleared their sidewalks. I know how hard it can be, as my back will attest after going through 3 rounds of manual snow/ice removal in the last 24 hours, including removing the ice wall in front of my driveway this morning. (Not only do I not own a snow-blower, but without a garage, I'm not sure where I'd put one.)

One of the local business
that didn't clear their walk,

even though they managed
to fully clear their parking lot.

I am frankly stunned that some of the commercial properties - in front of apartment buildings and stores - are so poorly cleared. Since the stores are open for business and people are coming and going from the apartments, I know it's not a case of no one being able to physically get to the location.

City ordinance requires that sidewalks be cleared within 24 hours of the end of the storm. If you can't get all the ice off, the city expects that salt/sand be applied. 

I am very happy that we have this ordinance, because not everyone is physically capable of navigating snow banks, icy sidewalks, or narrow paths stamped down only by others' feet. A few years ago there was a news story about a student at the UW who was trying to get to classes but couldn't because he was in w wheelchair, and the sidewalk between his apartment and the corner had not been cleared. Not only that, he couldn't even get to a bus stop because the curb cuts at the corners had not been cleared. Even people with poor balance or less sure footing in general often can't navigate an uncleared sidewalk or blocked curb cut.

My neighbors shoveled.

Walking is not just an enjoyable activity, it is an integral part of our transportation system. Every trip begins and ends with walking, and walking is certainly safer than driving when the roads are still not completely cleared. And when the buses are up and running again, we will all need to walk to get to and from the bus. (And again, riding the bus is both safer for the individual, but also keeps lots of cars off the roads, thereby making icy roads safer for others as well.)

One of the other nice features of living in Madison is that there are locations around the city with sand piles (mixed with salt, which both keeps the salt from freezing into a solid mass and helps melt snow/ice.) This is free of the taking for use on your sidewalk, stairs, or driveway. I have used perhaps one bag of salt in 20 years of home ownership. I use the sand from the city instead. The darker color of the sand also helps the sun take care of the final melting.

Convention cities worried about traffic. Umm.. transit?

Here's an article about worried people are about the traffic snarls and delays getting to work that will be caused by the Democratic and Republican conventions in Charlotte, NC and Tampa, FL. They do mention working from home, but really, not one mention in three pages of transit?

I know there's a transit system in Tampa. At least there is a regional systemhttp://www.gohart.org/. And look, they even have information about the GOP convention. However, when I clicked on the link for the System Map (local) link I get a Page Not Found message. Not really helpful.

Charlotte has transit too. They even put out a press release about service during the DNC. I'm not overwhelmed by their website, but at least you know it exists.

Maybe they should tell the folks at the paper that this would be a great time for locals to try it out instead of focusing on how bad the traffic is.

Transportation articles roundup - not just bikes

More articles with a few comments, OK, sometimes quite a bit of commentary.

The Atlantic Cities ran an article titled, Why Cyclists Run Red Lights. I'm not entirely sure the research conclusions for Australia are valid here in the U.S., but at least someone is doing the research.

And the above article also refers to the NY Times article, If Kant Were a New York Cyclist. This article ponders the ethics - not the legality - of running red lights. A nice quote sums up the feelings of many bicyclists with regard to traffic laws:

Laws work best when they are voluntarily heeded by people who regard them as reasonable. There aren’t enough cops to coerce everyone into obeying every law all the time. If cycling laws were a wise response to actual cycling rather than a clumsy misapplication of motor vehicle laws, I suspect that compliance, even by me, would rise.

The Guardian (UK) suggests that demonstrating cycling proficiency be a requirement to get a driver's licence. In general, I think that getting a driver's licence in the U.S. us far too easy. In many countries it is hard and expensive to get a driver's licence and easy to lose it. People take it seriously. It's more like getting a professional certification. Unfortunately, many people in the U.S. consider driving a right instead of a privilege. We require a licence because operating a motor vehicle is dangerous to yourself and others. Maybe if we made it harder to drive we could cut down on the 33,000 people every year that die in motor vehicle crashes.

A New York Times transportation reporter writes about learning to ride a bike for the first time - as an adult. He talks about how he felt he needed to learn for professional reasons. Bicycling has become a controversial and popular topic over the last few years, and he thought he needed to know first-hand how it felt to ride through the streets.

From the other side, a couple years ago I taught an adult (OK an 18-year-old) how to ride a bike for the first time. I didn't write about it at the time because I didn't want to embarrass her, but it was thrilling for both of us when she started pedaling around the streets for the first time.

And make sure to read the comments on the NY Times article. Over 200 so far. Although some complain about rude bicyclists on city streets, a great many talk about the joys of learning to ride as an adult. To many of us who ride, a bicycle gives a certain type of freedom of movement and a feeling close to flying. Seeing someone experience this, or hearing them describe that joy and freedom almost brings tears to my eyes.

Frustrations of air travel push passengers to Amtrak. The NY Times article title says it all. And it makes me want to weep, or maybe throw something, that we also had the chance to have rail service to Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago, and is was all thrown away due to short-sighted thinking and allegiance to the road builders.

The article is about the NE Corridor, the most popular and only profitable service for Amtrak, but I've been seeing enough other articles about pending rail service - run as for-profit companies no less - to make me think rail travel is on the verge of a resurgence. After all, you can work on the train without being told to turn off your phone, computer, or music.

More articles about rail service coming back, and it's sometimes a bit surprising where people have redeveloped an interest in trains:

• Dallas-Houston in 90 minutes. No public money requested.
• Gulf Coast mayors want to bring back Amtrak's  Sunset Limited between Jacksonville and New Orleans.
• LA to Las Vegas in 1 hour 45 min. for $45 say investors in private rail service.
• And even Florida is talking about the Miami-Orlando service again, this time as a private company.

To the guy in the white Lexus hybrid SUV

Scene: Today, Saturday, August 4, 2012, approx 11:15 am. Westside Farmers Market (DOT parking lot).

I had parked next to the above mentioned white Lexus hybrid SUV. When I parked, I noticed that the engine was running, and a woman was sitting in the passenger seat looking bored, maybe slightly irritated, and definitely not smiling. I sort of wondered why she had to run the engine, contributing to the air quality problems on a hot summer day. (Last night there was an air quality alert.)

But I didn't say anything and went off to to my shopping.

When I returned, I was just opening the door to get into the car when a man, apparently the driver of the SUV, called out, “Whoa! Careful there.” I looked down, and my door was nowhere near his car. I had opened the door slowly and carefully. I nodded to him, indicating that I saw his car and was being careful.

SUV guy: “Well, it's a $63,000 car. Don't want it to get scratched.”

Me, silently, in my head: [Well, aren't you special. If you really wanted to be sure no one would get near your car, you could have parked it on the other side of the lot where no one would park near you, but you couldn't be bothered to walk a few dozen extra feet.]

Me, out loud, but still calmly and politely: “Don't worry, I'm not going to ding your car. But since we are having a conversation, you should know that there is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the City of Madison.”

SUV guy, sarcastically: "Oh, well, thanks for letting me know."

SUV guy, under his breath, as he gets into the car: “Yeah, and you can stick that....”

Me, through the rolled up window: “Oh, thanks for that comment too.”

We both smile insincerely at each other and give each other a thumbs up as he drives off, obviously both thinking we'd both rather be using another finger.

[end scene]

Seriously, I didn't do anything except try to get in my car, and this self-important jerk starts blustering about his expensive car.

So if anyone knows someone that fits that description, tell him he's a real piece of work. And tell him his behavior and concern for his status symbol car is indicative of someone trying to compensate for, umm, shall we say “shortcomings.”

Bicycle news stories round-up - Late July 2012

I haven't been blogging much, but I've been writing a lot at work. Instead of something profound (as if my stuff is ever "profound"...), maybe I can just share a few things I run across. I'll also try to write more, but in the meantime...

I'm going to try to post a few interesting stories about bicycling each week or two. Few comments, but mostly links to the articles.

Madison PD expands bike-cop program. New bikes, more cops on bikes. The program as been very popular with both the officers and the public.

The Atlantic Cities examines how bicyclists can sometimes be the bad guys. Although some pedestrians are quick to complain about bicyclists being rude, generally pedestrians and bicyclists are allies.

Walking and Biking Pay Off. The final reports are in, and an article for Federal Highways looks at the four Non-Motorized Pilot Transportation projects - one in Sheboygan.

Have you ever been accused of hating cars? Or heard people say the city is waging a war on cars? NPR examines this claim. And unless you think that this is a new argument, they look at the history of the American relationship with the car, one that has not always been loving.

Bike sharing helps transit systems bridge the "last mile." A good article in Mass Transit magazine explains that bike sharing can enhance a transit system by allowing customers to get from the bus or rail stop to their final destination quickly and easily. Chicago received money to get a bike sharing program off the ground from TIGER III funding by pointing out that the program will complement and improve access to the transit system. But as the Mass Transit article points out, the Federal Transit Administration won't fund the infrastructure for bike sharing, although the Federal Highway Administration will. And both the physical and political environment in a city must be friendly for bike sharing to work.

New York's huge bike share program is still on hold, and people are wondering what is holding it up. Even elected officials say the silence about the delay is disconcerting.

From Boston comes this blog post about why we should pay people to bike to work. What the post really argues is that "parking cash-out" should be more common.

A study from Florida shows that using "sharrows" on roads without bike lanes, but which have on-street parking, decreases the percentage of bicyclists riding in the "door zone," that is the area where they could be hit by a car door if someone opens it into traffic. Unfortunately, the percentage decrease only went from 71 percent to 55 percent, meaning that more than half the bicyclists still are at risk. Maybe they need more bicycle education. Florida isn't known as the safest place to ride or walk, and bicyclists are probably not all that confident that they won't get hit anyway.

Madison installed a HAWK signal - otherwise known as a pedestrian beacon at Blair St on the E. Mifflin bike boulevard. This signal is supposed to help bicyclists and pedestrians cross Blair while not encouraging additional motor vehicle traffic on Mifflin. Some recent research shows that these types of signals are effective in reducing pedestrian crashes.

Keeping older people mobile shouldn't just involve wider roads and bigger signs

This is a theme in transportation policy: If people are driving off the road or otherwise having crashes, the obvious solution is to make the road more "forgiving," that is make it easier to drive faster and without paying attention. The solution isn't to make people drive slower or be more alert; it's an engineering problem, not a human problem.

Talk about enabling bad behavior. How would the tough-love people feel about fixing the problem of irresponsibility in other areas of our lives by making sure there aren't harsh consequences? I'd love to hear this in a debate among conservatives.

Here's another example, a report on "Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans."

What do you mean you don't have guest bike parking?

Today I am at the Wisconsin Bike Summit, being held at Inn on the Park in Madison. Since the weather and outlook was a typically late-winter mix of precipitation - a bit of wet snow, and maybe rain and/or snow later - I thought it would be best to try to find sheltered bike parking, if possible. My bike has weathered many years of abuse, but I'd rather not have a wet ride when I get ready to leave.

The Inn on the Park has valet car parking, so as I rolled up, I thought I'd ask if they had indoor or covered bike parking as well. After all, the Concourse, just a couple blocks away, has bike racks in their garage, and they have provided a separate bike room for storage for some conferences.

Alas, they looked at me as if I had two heads when I asked about sheltered bike parking. So I parked at the side of the building and covered my seat with the plastic bag I keep stashed under my seat.

Now, being a local, I was pretty sure that there was no covered bike parking at Inn on the Park. I also know where to find covered bike parking within a couple of blocks, but I was late for my meeting, so was hoping that some accommodations were made for the Bike Summit and the anticipated large number of people arriving by bike today.

I also wanted to make a point as a customer, and this is really the lesson from this blog post. People who drive are quick to tell businesses if they find it difficult or inconvenient to park. Ask almost any business, and they will be glad to tell you how important [car] parking is to their customers. No conference hotel would dismiss the [car] parking concerns of their customers. Yet I was being sent out into wet weather to fend for myself with my vehicle.

Bicyclists need to be more vocal about their needs as well. Accommodating bicycle parking needs is relatively simple and inexpensive. Yet we as bicyclists meekly accept locking up to a sign post, overcrowded rack, or in the rain. We as customers need to ask for safe and convenient bicycle parking.

I'm not suggesting being mean or indignant, just asking, "Excuse me, could you tell me where I can park my bike?" And if you get a blank stare, or if the bicycle parking is not serving your needs, drop a note to the management suggesting how they can better provide for bicyclists. After all, you are a customer too.

Are parking requirements holding up infill development?

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?

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.

Lack of action on federal transportation bill actually benefits bike-ped projects

Not everywhere, of course, but Sheboygan County and Minneapolis, as well as Marin County, CA, and Columbia, MO, have gotten far more money than they could have every imagined. And the money just keeps coming.

Why?

Because those four communities: one rural county (Sheboygan), one suburban county (Marin), one small city (Columbia), and one large city (Minneapolis) each got $25 million in the last five-year transportation bill under the Non-Motorized Pilot Program. That's $5 million per year for the life of the SAFETEA-LU bill. The goal was to see if a massive influx of funding could change the mode share and significantly improve walking and biking.

But every time Congress fails to pass a new transportation bill, they pass a "continuing resolution", that keeps money flowing to the same programs, in the same amounts, for another chunk of time. We are now 835 days past due for a new transportation bill. Yes, over two years. That means that each of the communities listed above have had another $10 million handed to them to keep trying to change their local transportation system towards being more pedestrian and bicycle friendly!

To see how they have done, you can click around on the NMPP site, but much of the information is not up to date, and many of the changes in behavior and mode split may not be apparent for a few more years. After all, some of the trails, bridges, and other infrastructure aren't even finished yet. And educational and encouragement programs are just starting to have an effect.

For us here in Wisconsin, Sheboygan County was definitely starting the farthest back, as far as being pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. They had to start almost from zero on their planning efforts and educational programs. The other had already done some of the work, and just needed the money to make their bike-ped dreams a reality.

We often read about how great Minneapolis is for bicycling. It was rated # 1 by Bicycling Magazine, and is #2 among the top 50 largest cities in the percent of work trips by bike. [Note that Madison beats Minneapolis, and ties with Portland, OR, but is not among the top 50 largest cities.] They have worked really hard, and I don't want to take anything away from the advocates, planners, engineers, elected officials, and everyone else that is working on making Minneapolis bike-friendly. But having $35 million (and still coming) drop on you helps a lot as well!

The most dangerous consumer product in the US

This AZ press release makes some very good points about driving and road safety. As I am fond of saying, "If any other consumer product had this sort of safety record, it would be pulled from the market within a week."

When I say things like that, people point out that the majority of Americans either drive or ride in a car every day, so it's not surprising that we have a few deaths. OK, let's look at this another way. What if 30,000+ people were killed every year using a computer, or a credit card? Those are some pretty mundane task that tens of millions - maybe more than a hundred million - of people use every day. Would we accept someone using a computer dying every 15 minutes? Would we accept 30,000+ people dying from turning on the lights in their homes or making coffee?

Why is it acceptable to lose this many people every year by motor vehicle? Especially when the majority of those deaths could be easily prevented by making sure that people take driving seriously. No, you can't talk on the phone. No, you can't drink alcohol. No, you can't go over the speed limit. Not OK. A motor vehicle is a large, complex, dangerous machine, which is why we require people to have a license to operate one.

In many countries of the world, getting a driver's license is hard and expensive. And losing one is easy. In some European countries, you can lose your license for a year if you get your first DUI, and if you get three, ever, you will never be issued a license again, for the rest of your life.

Yes, we make it easy to get a driver's license, and hard to lose it, in this country because most people have no other way to get around, if they can't drive. Children can't get to school, unless their parents drive them. People wouldn't be able to work, shop, visit friends and relatives, see the doctor, or otherwise do normal activities. Of course, 30% of the US population doesn't drive, but they are considered some sort of freaks, those too young, too old, too cheap, too frail, or too environmentally conscious to drive or own a car.

But we need to rethink this whole transportation thing. People shouldn't be trapped in their cars to live, work, and move about. It's too expensive - for both individuals and taxpayers, too unsustainable - in so many ways, and yes, too dangerous to have everyone doing it.

My mantra: "Driving should be a choice, not a requirement."

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.

An entrepreneurial idea: We need a coffee shop without the coffee

No, not really. And I love all our local coffee shops, each with their own, slightly different feel, clientele, music, snacks, and vibe. But often I go to the coffee shop just to use the internet and the chairs, and buy the beverages or snacks to justify using the facilities. What I really want is a place to work besides my house.

So I'm going to again do something that people hate, and say, "Someone should...." It's true, I'm not going to do it myself, for a multitude of reasons, but I think it's a great business idea waiting to happen. And I'm not the only one.

Madison has tons of people that work from home, or more precisely work from the coffee shop, library, or anywhere else they can get an internet connection. Until recently, I was one of them. (I now have a real office, but that's another story.) Like many people, I have trouble getting work done at my house. I'm distracted by housework, cooking, bills, or something else in easy reach. Besides, I get a little squirrelly working at my house with no other humans around.

Other people can't work at home because there are too many people around: roommates, kids, spouses or neighbors.

Having a little separation between home and work - literal and figurative - is necessary for many people.

The problem with working in a coffee shop is that you have to carry your stuff around in a bag or backpack. You have to pack it all up if you need to use the bathroom, make a phone call, or run an errand. And maybe you aren't in the mood for anything to eat or drink. Maybe the music just doesn't suit you, a bunch of people just came in an started talking loudly just when you needed to concentrate, or all the good chairs are taken.

What many of us really need is a place to work that isn't home, and doesn't require a separate purchase each time you come in (or every hour or two, depending on the location.) And it would be nice to be able to leave a few things there, so you don't have to drag it around all day, every day. I could do just fine with one drawer, or even a little cube locker. But we don't really need, and can't afford, a full-on office. We just want a place to work.

My ideal would be a shared office with tables/desks, some comfortable chairs (I prefer to type sitting in a chair, with my laptop on my knees), and some locking file cabinets or small lockers. Maybe a small conference room and/or a separate room where you can take a phone call without bothering other people. Internet service would be provided, but no mail or phone service. The conference room would be available on a sign-up basis, and any other meetings would have to take place off-site. A fridge and microwave would be useful, if only to save a few bucks - now that we are paying rent, don't need to buy that sandwich at the coffee shop to justify sitting there, and in case we are hungry but want to keep working.

As to cost, maybe $100 or less per month. I have no idea what office space goes for, but there has to be some underutilized offices around. Hell, even a big loft/warehouse area could be fixed up to make it usable. Many people are probably spending $100/month at coffee shops as the price they pay for sitting there.

Somewhere in the downtown/campus area would seem the best location, because that seems to be where people are already working. Besides, a successful shared office would need to be close to other businesses, food, coffee shops, bars, etc.

There would need to be some sort of agreement among those using the office as to noise, acceptable uses of the internet - so no one hogs the bandwidth, food/beverage rules, and cleaning. Ideally, each renter would be given a key fob that would open a door to the office, so there would be no set hours. You could rent access monthly or yearly, and when your rental period or membership was over, the owner/manager would simply deactivate your access.

I just mentioned this idea to an acquaintance, who also works from home. This person is very well connected and successful, but said he would definitely utilize something like that. And he told me that another person had just expressed an interest in the same type of facility.

Apparently, these arrangements are pretty common in larger cities. Someone should open one in Madison. Not me, but "someone."

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.

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.

Black Friday recall efforts: Midnight at Hilldale Target

Earlier this week, I tried to find any group organizing for the Hilldale Black Friday midnight sale. Although I couldn't find any official efforts, after a little emailing in the neighborhood, I found some other folks that were already planning on going down Thanksgiving night around 11 PM. I was glad to know I wouldn't be alone. It's more fun with others, and it's safer too. You never know what you are going to run into out there.

At first we were on the curb across from Target, just south of the University Ave entrance to Hilldale. When the line to go in the door grew to where it reached the University Ave sidewalk,  decided to go over there to walk up and down the line. I knew that the sidewalk on University Ave was public, so it was OK to stand there.

Unfortunately, one of the Target employees was not so knowledgeable about the public right of way, and she came over to tell me that the sidewalk was private property, and I couldn't be there with the petitions.

Hmmm... I hate to act like a know-it-all, or pull out my past service on the City Council, but I was definitely not moving. I tried to be polite and point out that the sidewalk was legally part of the "street," and so was public. The employee kept saying, "This isn't the street, it's the sidewalk. We paid for this sidewalk." Yes, Target was required to pay to have the sidewalk installed as part of the development, but they do not own it. It's City property.

Ms Target Employee finally told me that if I didn't leave, she would call the police. I responded that she was free to do so, but I could guarantee that the police would agree with me about my right to be there. In order to not waste the time of the police, I did point out to her that I had been on the Council when the Target development was approved, and I was quite aware of the public right of way. She still thought I was on private property.

Of course, when the police arrived, they said I was completely within my rights to be on the sidewalk, and as long as I was not harassing the customers, I and the rest of the volunteers could stay. We had been very polite, and as a matter of fact, had mostly not even talked to people unless they approached us first.

I think the employee was completely shocked that, not only was I not intimidated by her, but I was willing to risk dealing with the police. Of course, since I knew I was within my rights, I wasn't bothered at all.

So not only did I collect a bunch of signatures, but I struck a blow for our civil liberties.

So to all you recall volunteers: Know where the public/private line is, and don't let anyone tell you you can't be on the public sidewalk. (We actually moved to the terrace so we wouldn't block people walking or standing in line, but that was being polite, not a matter of our rights.)

And if you go to Hilldale, Frey St, which runs on the other side of the Target parking lot from University Ave, and the bus stop across from Sundance Theater are also public right of way.