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.”

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.

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.

Stop the bike vs car wars - we're all at fault

No matter what mode of transportation you name: cars, bikes, feet, bus, trains, airplanes, or rollerblade, someone is going to gripe about people that use that form of transportation. With a background in bicycle advocacy, I have heard more than my share of gripes about the way bicyclists and motorists operate.

Instead of arguing who's right or wrong, or what road users break the law more often, I try to diffuse the tension and give people a little perspective with a couple of thoughts.

First, my personal opinion is that all road users should obey all traffic laws all the time. That includes signalling turns, not speeding, yielding to pedestrians, not going through an "orange" light, full stop at stop signs, etc. But we all know that everyone breaks at least some laws every time they take to the road. Yes, even you. Let's try to concentrate on stopping people from doing things that are going to endanger other people.

And before all my biking friends jump down my throat, and if anyone else is interested in a perspective on why bicyclists blow stop signs, here's a little article from Toronto to give the other side.

My second approach, to try to get people off the "who's worse" train, is that it's not the vehicle that causes bad behavior. It's the person using the vehicle. And most bicyclists are also drivers. They are probably scofflaws when they drive as well. You may see them, or only pay attention when they are on their bikes, but they probably get behind the wheel and break the law there too. If someone is in a hurry or is reckless when riding their bike, then they are likely in a  hurry and reckless in a car as well.

And finally, people ask me what they can do to improve the driving (or biking) of others. As an elected official, people constantly asked me how to get people to stop speeding, or how to get people to yield to pedestrians. Well, it's not easy, and we all have a part. We have to speak up, and it may be speaking up to those we love.

How often do each of us ride in a car with someone else, and notice that person speeding, blowing a red, not coming to a full stop before making a turn, or not yielding to a pedestrians? And how many of us say something to our spouse, friend, co-worker, neighbor, parent or sibling? If we see our neighbor blow the stop sign at the end of the block every day, and don't say anything about it, how can we expect anyone else to get through to that person?

So yes, the police can run around ticketing people for every little thing, but that is going to cost you, the taxpayer a ton of money. Contrary to what some people think, it costs the city money to enforce those laws. The time required to stop someone, do a license check, write the ticket, file the paperwork, and then possibly go to court when the person contests the ticket, is far more in staff time and resources than the money coming in from that ticket. That's not to say that we shouldn't enforce traffic laws, but we are never going to get perfect compliance by using law enforcement only.

Why do people yield to pedestrians in California and many other parts of the US? Because that's just the way things are done, and you learn that from the time you start to walk. It's cultural, like being stoic about cold weather in Wisconsin. (Or a more negative cultural tradition, drunk driving.)

We all have to start being responsible for our own behavior and also speaking up when we get the chance. Don't sit silent if you see someone speeding, and you are sitting in the car next to him. Say something. And let's all watch our own behavior as well. none of us is perfect, regardless of whether we walk, bike, drive, roll, or run.

We can make the streets safer for everyone, but we all have to be part of that change.

Is the gas tax the next Tea Party target?

That's the question asked by this article from yesterday. There's something for everyone to hate hate in some of the comments from Grover Norquist and other anti-tax people.

Gas taxes shouldn't be used for transit or bicycle/pedestrian projects. (Despite the fact that these projects actually take pressure off many roads, and are a far cheaper way of moving people than single occupancy vehicles.)

Federal regulations require union labor, which of course is a waste of money. We can have unskilled labor with no negotiating power build our roads, bridges, and tunnels.

The states can do things much more efficiently, and can decide if they want to raise their own taxes to pay for transportation. Where to start on that one? I'm sure the Wisconsin governor and legislators will be glad to raise taxes and fees.... And of course, the interstate system is a federal highway system. There is a reason it is fairly predictable; you pretty much know what it's going to look and feel like regardless of what state you are in. That's because it has federal standards.

Note also that there is actually a teaser headline/link in the middle of the article that says the GM CEO wants to RAISE the gas tax $1.00 per gallon. I didn't click on that link, but it's sort of an interesting juxtaposition. That position is reiterated at the end of the article, where it notes that the US Chamber of Commerce also supports a hike in the gas tax.

This is all coming to a head, because the multi-year federal transportation bill - which is somewhere between $200 - $500 billion (yes, that's a B), is on what is known as a continuing resolution. It was supposed to be written, debated, argued over, and somehow passed in a year and a half ago. (You can go here to see the clock on how long overdue it is.) Since we can't just stop building, maintaining, and operating our roads, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, non-motorized trails, and every other surface transportation system, Congress keeps extending the current bill, with all it's current policies and programs by six months at a time to keep the money flowing and the system working. The most recent continuing resolution will run out at the end of September.

Cue the scary music.

Another bicyclist injured on Whitney Way

Last time it was just north of the Beltline, and the driver tried to drive off, dragging the bicyclist under her car. Fortunately, the driver of a Roto-Rooter truck blocked her so the injured woman could be helped. But the driver then sped off again.

This time the hit-and-run was just south of the Beltline, but also on Whitney Way.

Sounds to me like there is a need for some safety improvements, or maybe another route option in this area. The Beltline crossings in this area are pretty far apart for a bicyclist or pedestrian. It is roughly a mile to the Grand Canyon underpass to the west, and about 3/4 mile to the Hammersley overpass to the east (and that is as the crow flies, not as the bicyclist is able to use on-ground connections.)

With two crashes within one month, is that enough to get hazard mitigation funding? There is a nice cul-de-sac at Forward Dr south of the Beltline, and another one on Schroeder Ct., just west of Whitney. Maybe we can get a crossing there? The Odana Golf Course makes it a bit tough to find a crossing between Whitney and Hammersley, but maybe we can find a way.

And just by coincidence, when I went in to Google Maps streetview just north of the Beltline on northbound Whitney Way, there is a bicyclist in the shot!  [edit: On second glance, I actually think that is a scooter, but it's still a horrid place to be on a small vehicle that doesn't go as fast as the cars generally are moving.]

Crossing the Beltline by foot or by bike via the normal car routes - Fish Hatchery, Whitney, Rimrock, Mineral Point, Old Sauk Rd, etc. - is a scary experience, even for experienced cyclists. I've done it many times, and I don't like it. I do it because I have to get somewhere, and just like most people, want to get there by the fastest and most direct route.

If we want people to be able to go the same places by bike and by foot as they do when in a car - and I think that should be our goal - we need to spend as much time thinking about making the routes as safe for bicyclists and pedestrians as we do solving safety problems for motorists. After all, if two cars are in a sideswipe crash at 25-30 mph, or a car bumps another from behind, there will be damage, but likely not major injury to either driver or any passenger. But if a car sideswipes a bicyclist at 30 mph, or rear ends a bicyclist when the speed differential is 15 mph (bicyclist going 15 and car going 30), the bicyclist is likely to end up in the hospital.

We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year in Wisconsin making sure that motorists are both not overly delayed and are as safe as possible. That doesn't stop all the deaths and injuries, but we have engineered the roads as close to fool-proof as possible. We cut down trees, make the roads wide and the curves gentle. We put up signs and lights as warnings. We paint every road with stripes and arrows, and take over huge swaths of valuable land - good farmland or pricey urban land - to accommodate safe and fast roads.

Fortunately, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are nowhere near as expensive as roads. A fe years back, the Madison Transportation Planning Board (MPO) was asked to make up a list of what it would do with $50 million in federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Almost everything we have been planning for for 15 years could be built with that money.

That seems like a lot of money, until you consider that the "interim fixes" to Verona Rd - just to make it work for motorists until 2030 - will cost... what's it up to now? Maybe $140 million? And then the planned freeway conversion in 2030 will be another $200 million. (The DOT web site is nowhere close to up to date on this project. I just attended a meeting on Wednesday where they presented a new version of Stage 1.)

So OK, that's a really big road, and several state highways. How about the S&M intersection on the west side of Madison. That is two county roads, but the City of Madison is picking up most of the local share. Just that one intersection, not even an interchange with the Beltine, will cost about $20 million. And that doesn't count the rest of the "improvements" to County Hwy M to accommodate all the commuters between Verona and Madison (or Middleton.)

So why is it so hard to make it safe for bicyclists and pedestrians to get across the Beltline? Why do we have to have a separate, and very small pot of money for that, instead of just building these projects just like we build big highways?

PBIC image - Dan Burden

The City of Madison has been pretty good about building good, safe connections for bicyclists and pedestrians, but that's partly because we have also been able to tap into federal earmarks. What will happen when those dry up? Will we keep building bigger and bigger roads, even as [motorized] vehicle miles traveled decreases, and bicycle mileage grows? And will be keep putting off the projects that would allow people to safely, easily, and quickly get across the barriers that we have created with... wait for it... all the big road?!

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.

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.

Bicyclists and car drivers are not (usually) separate groups

An email arrived today from a colleague in another part of the country. She was posting a questionnaire her bicycle advocacy group had sent to candidates for office. Like many groups around the country, they wanted to see the candidates' feelings and attitudes towards certain issues in the community. The answers would be sent to members and shared with the public.

By the way, this is one way for a 501(c)3 organization, which are generally thought to be prohibited from political activity, to be involved with elections. Sending a questionnaire and sharing/publishing the results is fine, as long as you send the questionnaire to all candidates and don't endorse.


However, the first sentence on this questionnaire was, "We believe great places to live provide transportation independence for those who do not drive motor vehicles."

This bothered me a bit, and below is the response email I wrote.

You start off with the the statement, "We believe great places to live provide transportation independence for those who do not drive motor vehicles."

I think this is a bit of a disservice to your/our cause, and also to those of us use bicycling and walking as everyday transportation modes. I own a car and drive. But I also bike and walk more frequently, and obviously believe strongly in the necessity of having these options for all in the community. 

It is not just those that "do not drive motor vehicles" that need these options. It is all of us! We all know why, so I won't go into that.

But we need to think about how we portray ourselves, and making a sharp dividing line between "pedestrians and bicyclist" on one side, and "drivers" on the other is not going to help both our image and our cause. We are everyone. We are you. We are your neighbors, friends, colleagues, doctors, lawyers, teachers, city officials, store owners, and the rest of the people you see every day. We are normal. 

Not driving is seen as something for the poor, the very young and very old, and people with disabilities. Or worse, people who have had their license taken away (although that seems to stop few in Wisconsin, the only state where a first OWI is a civil forfeiture, like a parking ticket, and you have to have 4 OWIs in 5 years to make it a felony.) In very large cities, obviously not driving is more normal for middle class and professional people, but there are few of these places [where you live] and most states.

We know that this is not the case, but we need to point out that everyone needs good access to non-motorized transportation, not just the non-drivers. 

I see this in news articles, community discussions, and policy documents. We talk about bicyclists as if they are not also drivers. I would venture to say that 95% of the people on this list own a car and drive. When we are told, "Bicyclists don't pay for the roads," - because people think we don't pay gas taxes - we have to point out again and again that we pay gas taxes, car registration, and licensing fees, because we are also drivers. And we are also property owners, and in Wisconsin property taxes pay almost 100% of the costs of local roads, the ones that most of us use for biking. 

We also hear, "Bicyclists don't obey the law." Of course, drivers don't obey the law either - speed limits, yielding to pedestrians, full stops before entering the crosswalk, etc. But it is much easier to say, "Most bicyclists are also drivers, They probably don't obey the law when driving either." It personalizes the violation, so it's not the vehicle that causes the law-breaking, it's the person. And it points out that bicyclists and drivers are not separate, segregated elements of the community, but simply the same people making a separate choice for that trip, like running shoes, dress shoes or loafers on your feet. 

Wisconsinites don’t want to pay anything for transportation, neither rail nor roads

While an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel indicates that Wisconsinites oppose rail, I think the results merit a little further reflection.

Trains vs. buses

Short post, because I'm running off to a meeting. Sorry, not my best writing work.


Several people have suggested we don't need the Madison-Milwaukee train because "You can take the bus."


I have a few comments about this. Obviously this completely ignores the fact that the train also goes to Chicago and would be extended to the Twin Cities, not to mention the connections to points in between and cities throughout the Midwest network. And as you see below, there are distinct advantages to trains over buses, both for the individual, the state, and the operator of the service.

My letter to Scott Walker on rail

Although lots of people are calling and emailing Doyle and Walker to support the Madison-Milwaukee extension of rail service, I thought a person, hard copy, snail letter might be a good idea. Below you can see my letter Walker.

Two similar crashes. Two media reports. Can you spot the difference?

Crash # 1: Two vehicles collide on Mineral Point Road, one eastbound, and one westbound. Westbound vehicle operator turns left, failing to yield to eastbound vehicle operator.

Crash # 2: Two vehicles collide on University Ave, one eastbound, and one westbound. Westbound vehicle operator turns left, failing to yield to eastbound vehicle operator.

Can you spot the differences in the way the incidents were reported? Same reporter, although many times the newspaper reports are a verbatim repeat of the police reports, so it may not be the reporter's fault.

"...only had two beers and a shot."

Bradley Erickson, who was allegedly driving drunk when he crashed into a parked car killing three people early Thursday, said he didn't see the car and had only two beers and a shot of liquor hours earlier while watching a baseball game.

This makes me so angry. The quote above is from the guy that killed three people on the Interstate last week. He was in Marshfield for work, watched a baseball game, then left at 10 PM to drive back to Madison. Before he left, he had two beer and a shot of Jagger (or at least that's what he says.)

The crash happened at 2:35 AM, and his blood alcohol content at that time was 0.158, more than twice the legal limit. So, he's been driving for four hours, and his BAC is still twice the legal limit? What makes me think he either drank along the way, or was so smashed when he left that he's lucky he didn't go off the road within the first fifteen minutes?

Thinking that "only two beers and a shot" is nothing when leaving on a long, late night drive is bad enough, but I'm just not sure it's physically possible for his BAC to be that high after four hours if that is all he had.

Really, if you knew you weren't going to drive for 4 1/2 hours at night, not getting home until 2:30 AM, would you have a few drinks before leaving? How stupid and careless do you have to be to think that's OK? Or do we just assume that both alcohol and driving are rights, instead of responsibilities?

We have to do something about the idea that drinking and driving are an acceptable combination. Make a choice: either drink and don't drive, or drive, but don't drink. Maybe we need every car to have an ignition lockout as standard equipment. Certainly, we need to change the laws to make first time OWI a criminal offense, like every other state. And we all need to tell our friends, family, and work colleagues, "No" when they want another one, if they are going to drive home.

This has to stop. The price is too high to continue to cave to the Tavern League and the auto industry.

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.

Reminder: School Zone speed limit is 20 mph in Madison

In the last couple of day, there have been a couple of articles reminding us that school is starting and motorists should drive carefully around schools. The Madison Police Dept. put out a press release, so I assume the articles were generated from that. Some also mention that the MPD will be enforcing speed limits and other traffic laws in school zones.

This is good, because everyone using the roads should be aware of kids going to and from school. And the article mention that we should "slow down." They are even starting to mention that motorists (and bicyclists, too) need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

But something is missing, and it is bugging me that this little fact is left out. Neither the MPD press release nor any of the articles mention that the speed limit in school zones in Madison is 20 mph. It doesn't matter if that yellow sign is on Midvale Blvd, Milwaukee St, E Washington, or Regent St. No matter what the speed limit is at other times, or how fast the rest of the cars are going, when there are children present, the speed limit is 20 mph.

There are two schools on Midvale Blvd, also two schools on Regent St in a one mile stretch. Milwaukee St has several school zones strung together. And East High School, where two students were killed crossing the street, sits right on East Washington. And I have driven at 20 mph through each of these area, with kids present, and had people tailgate me, pass me unsafely on a 2-lane road, and generally been subjected to the treated as if I was trying to be a public menace.

You think you get dirty looks as a bicyclist riding in the middle of traffic? Try driving the speed limit past a school!

Good question: Where's the outrage over the proposed I-39 expansion cost?

From today's Cap Times comes a question I've asked quite a bit: "Where are the fiscal conservatives - the ones screaming about the cost of the Madison-Milwaukee rail project - when it comes to road costs?"

Chris Murphy did the research on numbers that I've been meaning to do.

But I am always struck by the opposition to rail based on its price tag when we spend far, far more on roads each year. According to state Department of Transportation figures (see table TR1 on page Roman numeral x), Wisconsin spent more than $1.1 billion last year just on highway rehabilitation and maintenance. Then there was another $323 million on new highway construction and major upgrades and more than $293 million on debt service, much of it likely for roads. All of those figures are separate, by the way, from aids given to municipalities to help pay for their roads and bridges; that's another $557 million and that doesn't count what counties, cities, villages and towns spend themselves on those projects.

 So... let's start a real conversation about the cost of different types of transportation. And don't give me the, "Most people drive, so we should be spending money on roads." B.S. When people have no other choices but to drive, of course they are going to chose that option. If you want to compare how many people use a certain mode, you have to compare driving vs. train in places where their time, cost, and convenience are similar. Perhaps looking at Metra in the Chicago area vs. how many people drive the same route. Or the NE corridor on Amtrak.

When the Madison-Milwaukee line gets up and running - and it will - I think many people will be amazed how many people chose that option over the I-94 drive.

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.

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.

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?