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?

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.

Survey on interest in downtown bike center

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

www.surveymonkey.com/s/8LXYMM8

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

[start forwarded message from consultant]

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

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

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

www.surveymonkey.com/s/8LXYMM8

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

www.cityofmadison.com/planning/judgeDoyleSquare

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

[end forwarded message]

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. 

Wisc-Minn hearings on possible rail routes between Milw and Twin Cities

Dates for meetings at the end of this post. Also note the change of venue for the Madison hearing.

Photo courtesy of Environmental Law and Policy Center

No, rail is not totally dead in Wisconsin. Even though Gov-elect Walker is determined to throw away $810 million of federal investment and thousands of jobs to stop the extension of the Hiawatha service between Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin and Minnesota DOT officials are moving forward with a series of meetings to study routes through Wisconsin to Minnesota.

Coming up this week and next these meetings that give us a great chance to show support for rail in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the info about the meetings is hard to come by and confusing for anyone not already deep in the rail debate. There isn't even any information on the WisDOT web site, and they are running the meetings!

This is my effort to put all the info in one place.

Apart from the $810 million in ARRA money granted to Wisconsin to extend the popular and successful Hiawatha line west from Milwaukee to Madison, there was another project funded - a study of the best route between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities. This was a joint study between the Wisconsin DOT and the Minnesota DOT, but Minnesota is taking the lead. Each state put in $300,000, and the federal government kicked in $600,000, so the study has $1.2 million total.

If the Hiawatha extension moves forward, that is, if Walker allows the Milwaukee-Madison piece to be built, it would seem logical for the MN-Milw route to go through Madison. But there are actually 14 routes being studied, and three of them do not pass through Madison. However, according to today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Wisconsin transportation officials don't believe any alignment that excludes Madison would be economically feasible, but the study has to consider all options, said Cari Anne Renlund, executive assistant to Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi.

That is why we need to attend these meetings and say that we want rail in Madison. Also, one of the routes being studied is the current Empire Builder route that goes through Columbus, not exactly convenient to Madison, and certainly not likely to bring business or tourists to downtown for Badger games, Taste of Madison, Farmers Market, Art Far on the Square, etc. It's also not going to help business people that want to access the Capitol or campus area by bus, foot or bike. They are looking for a quick, easy way to avoid driving, and a Columbus stop really isn't much help.

However, the Walker has said he might consider using the federal stimulus funds for the Empire Builder. I guess he's willing to hang on to that money, as long as it is for a project that is guaranteed to fail and won't benefit those meddlesome liberals in Madison.

So let's get out to the meetings and show our support for rail in Wisconsin. This is about more than the much-debated Milwaukee-Madison piece. It's about economic development in western Wisconsin and connections to the entire region. Eau Claire and LaCrosse are both eager to have a connection to Madison and the Twin Cities. They know that this will bring investment in their communities and crucial connections to business and people across the Midwest. Minnesota wants a connection to Chicago, and they will push for it, even if they have to go through Iowa instead of Wisconsin. Illinois officials are already looking at that possibility.

Do we really want Wisconsin to be bypassed? Are we going to be the backwater of the upper Midwest, doomed to be off the map as modern transportation moves through other states, loaded with business deals, tourists, and investments? Are we willing to be left off the new interstate system?

Attend one of these meetings, and RSVP via the WISPIRG web site so you can get more information on how we can move rail forward in Wisconsin:

• Tuesday, Nov. 30,  5-7pm: Best Western Riverfront Hotel, LaCrosse
• Wednesday, Dec. 1,  5-7pm: Best Western Trail Lodge, Eau Claire
• Thursday, Dec. 2,  5-7pm: University of Wisconsin, Fond du Lac
• Tuesday, Dec. 7,  5-7pm: WisDOT Southwest Region Office, 2101 Wright Street, Crowne Plaza Hotel, 4402 East Washington Ave, Madison

If you can't make the meetings, but want to submit comments, you can do so until December 29 by sending them to the MN DOT:

praveena.pidaparthi@state.mn.us

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.

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.

TIF Review Board: Edgewater, James Madison Park, blight, etc.

OK, I'm going to pull a Brenda and talk about a public meeting. The following may be a bit disjointed, but I don't have time and patience to straighten it out.

First a question: How is TIF going to make landlords maintain their property?

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.

Links and futher information on smart transportation policy

For the Bringing Bioneers to Wisconsin, From Here to There conference today and tomorrow, I was asked to fill in at the last moment for someone who couldn't make it. Since I don't have a web page of my own up, I'm using this blog as a way to give the participants access to some info that might be helpful to them in the future.