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!"?

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.

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.

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]

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.

Downtown Bicycle Parking: Issues and Solutions

Below is a document that I wrote in 2005, and recently edited as part of a discussion at several city committees on downtown bicycle parking. It was presented at the Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission in July, and has been sent to the State Street Design Oversight Committee as well. (It's long, but I wanted to get all my thoughts on the subject out in one place.)

At the July PBMVC, we also saw a draft proposal from Rebecca Cnare of the City Planning Department, which outlines some ways to increase bicycle parking in the downtown.

This topic is an ongoing discussion at city committees as well as among downtown business groups. I will point out that several of the suggestions in my report have already been or are about to be implemented, such as bike corrals - adding racks in the street where a car parking spot is currently located - and valet bike parking at Concerts on the Square, organized by Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin.

In a few days - or whenever I finish it - I will post another document I wrote about bike stations. As part of the rebuilding/redevelopment of the Government East Parking Ramp, a bike station has been proposed, and the UW has also discussed adding one to Union South.

BICYCLE PARKING ON STATE STREET

(and parts of the Capital Square.)

Issues and Solutions

Written by Robbie Webber

originally in approx. 2005, later revised and expanded summer 2011

The problem – inadequate bicycle parking

It is clear there is a lack of adequate bicycle parking on State Street. One only needs to walk up and down the street to see that there are many more bicycles than there are spots to park them. Even existing racks contain many more bikes than they were designed to accommodate.

Why it matters

If anyone thinks that this is just an inconvenience to bicyclists, I must point out that it is not. With nowhere appropriate to park bicycles, they are locked to benches, sign poles, parking meters, trees, fences, or other objects. They lean against buildings or other vertical surfaces. They then become pedestrian hazards or damage street furniture.

Appropriately accommodating bicycle parking makes business sense – and cents. A few years back we were proposing to build a band new car parking ramp for $11 million (the Mid-State St Ramp.) The yet-to-be-designed ramp to replace the Government East Ramp has an unknown, but likely very high price tag. We added 27 auto spots on the Square. We hear constantly about the need for auto parking in downtown. Many, many bikes can be parked in the space needed for just one car, and the cost is pennies compared to even one underground auto spot. Yet we have no plan to accommodate the thousands of visitors to State Street that arrive by bicycle.

Just as with car parking, businesses with convenient bike parking gain customers. Those without spots lose the impulse buyers or convenience diners. One reason people bike to downtown is because they can ride up to their destination. But if there is nowhere to park in front of the building, they may bypass that location for another.

The barriers to more bicycle parking

Whenever I have asked about increased bicycle parking, city staff points out all the locations on the sidewalk where a standard 3-4 space racks cannot be placed. There is only a limited amount of sidewalk, and many uses compete for the space. Besides a place to walk, the sidewalk on State Street is a place to serve food and beverages, sell merchandise, or sit on a bench. There are also street trees, delivery zones, bus stops, trash containers, street lights, and other street amenities. These are all fine uses, but each use competes with the others.

In addition to lack of space on the sidewalk, some merchants and property owners do not wish to have a bike rack placed in front of their building. I have heard comments that bike racks are “unsightly.” This is sad, because each bike means a potential customer for that business or an employee that does not need a car parking spot. I am also struggling with the resistance to placing bike racks on the south side of the 200 block (the Overture side.) According to our 1988 zoning code amendment, all new developments need to include bicycle parking in their plans. Yet the Planning Department has indicated none were included in the plans for Overture. This is direct violation of our zoning code. Further, the Overture Board has indicated they do not wish any racks placed on their side of the 200 block of State St. Since this side of the street is considerably wider than the north side, with fewer vendors and cafes, and Overture is far and away the largest draw on that block, I find it strange that they hold this position.

(The above paragraph was written a couple off years after the Overture Center was opened. Since then, as part of the redesign and rebuilding of the 200 block, I managed to get some racks installed on Fairchild St, at least within view of the main entrance to Overture. However, the Madison Museum of Contemporary Art still resists allowing any racks on the corner of State St and Henry, either on the State St side or the Henry side. There is quite a bit of space in both these locations, and a desperate need in that part of State St, especially for large events downtown.)

Finally, I believe a barrier to adequately accommodating bicycle parking needs is the assumption that the only way bicycles can be stored is on the sidewalk in standard 3-4 space racks. True, there are racks in the parking garages, but as we will see, there is no signage to direct people to these locations. I believe there is also an implicit “this is the best we can do” attitude among city staff. There does not appear to be the will among the various departments to solve the problem.

At some point in our civic past, Madison city staff, elected officials, and citizens made the decision that the city had the responsibility to appropriately store cars. We made accommodations so that there were places for people to leave their cars safely and efficiently while they worked, shopped, dined, attended events, or even went home to sleep. Madison has one of the highest bicycle transportation mode splits in the entire US, and the downtown is the highest use in Madison. It is time for the city to make this same commitment to bicycle parking.

Below are some ideas to relieve the bicycle parking crisis in downtown. No one idea will be sufficient, and all are just that, ideas. This is simply a starting point for further brainstorming and discussion. I hope you find it helpful.

Concepts to consider

1. Begin to think of bicycle parking in the same way we think of car parking. On June 9, (2005?) DMI hosted a presentation on Best Practices in Parking Management. Although I found most of the information too obvious for a city such as Madison, we can use some of the same concepts the consultant covered to plan appropriate bicycle parking. Look over your notes, and simply substitute “bicycle” everywhere that you would normal think “cars.” Proximity to destinations, inviting parking facilities, signage, customer service, new technologies, Private-public partnerships, etc. are but a few concepts that we need to consider.

2. Think of bicycles in the same way we think of cars. They are vehicles that need to be stored for short or long periods of time. We have short, medium, and long term car parking. We remove cars that appear to be abandoned. We have a limit on how long a car can be parked in a certain location. We devote staff to making sure cars are efficiently parked, and we enforce rules. We have people who use their cars every day, and people who use them occasionally. We have people that do not know their way around downtown, and we help them find a place to park their cars. People use their cars for commuting, for work, for shopping trips, or simply to visit the downtown. All of the above could also be said for bicycles. In some cases, using the same rules and requirements may not make sense, but we can start to think of bikes as vehicles that need a framework for parking.

Possible solutions

1. Make sure that bikes that are abandoned are removed. Bikes abandoned in racks are occupying spaces that others could be using. The city has let this task lapse, but it was never adequately staffed. Bicycles could be tagged on Monday each week and removed on Friday if the tag still exists. This means no bike is removed before 3 days has elapsed, and would clear spots a minimum of once a week. It seems that bikes only get removed before Maxwell Street Days and before Halloween. Even when people call to request removal of an abandoned bike, it is not done. We already have an ordinance that bicycles cannot be parked on the public right of way for more than 48 hours. It is the same ordinance that requires cars be moved every 48 hours (a requirement that many of my neighbors hate because they do not use their cars frequently.)

2. Consider lockers for daily commuters or local residents without bike storage on site. Many spots that could be occupied by shoppers or diners are taken by long term parkers. Lockers could be rented monthly. This allows a bicyclist with extensive commuting gear (lights, panniers, odometer, helmet, etc.) to leave much of the gear on the bike and know that it will be secure. People riding more expensive bikes will also feel their bike is safe from theft of vandalism.

3. Consider coin-operated lockers for people who wish to leave expensive bikes or purchases in the locker for medium or long term parking. An example would be similar to lockers one sees in train terminals or airports. Occasional shoppers may not want to rent a monthly locker, but they will be glad to have a place to store purchases while they eat diner or attend events. It would allow use similar to taking ones purchases back to the car until one is ready to go home.

4. Signage is very important. Many racks exist in locations that are not obvious or even visible from the main destinations on State St. This is one of the problems with the racks in the parking ramps or farther away from State St on Henry Street. If one is going to a show at the Orpheum or Overture Center, how is one supposed to know that racks exist on Henry St or the State Street Capital ramp? Even staring directly at the entrance to the city ramp gives no indication that racks are available inside.

5. Put smaller racks on the street. Parking meters or sign poles are used as de facto bike racks, yet take up little space. “Hitching post” type racks can accommodate two bikes, and occupy very little space. There are many locations that cannot accommodate a 3-4 space rack, but could easily take a hitching post.

6. Convert parking meters, poles, or other street accessories into real racks. This has been started with the conversion of the parking meters to “pay by space” parking systems. The poles remain and have been retrofitted with rings to allow proper bicycle parking. Tree protection fences, benches, or other street furniture can include bike parking spaces. This is done in many cities where people have used trees as bicycle parking. (This is illegal in Madison and damages young trees, which is why it is illegal in most cities.) decorative fences around trees can also have elements to allow proper bicycle parking.

7. The city may need to acquire property to adequately accommodate bicycle parking. We use real estate that could be privately held to park cars. Is it time to build a city bike parking lot or ramp? One caveat with this concept is that bicycle parking needs to be even more convenient than car parking in order to be used. One reason that bicycles are an attractive transportation alternative is because there is an expectation that parking will be extremely close to the destination. The previously proposed “Bike Station” at or near the site of the Government East Ramp/Public Market/High Speed Rail Station/current municipal lot would serve employees in the GEF complexes and the south side of the Square, but would not serve most of State St. However, a similar facility might help relieve the need for secure long-term parking in the State St area.

8. More space in city ramps can be devoted to bicycle parking. However, there must be adequate signage so that bicyclists know the spots exist. Bicycle parking inside ramps should also be attractive and feel safe. Better lighting, better visibility from the street or locations near parking personnel will mean nighttime use is less intimidating. The bicyclist should also feel safe from car traffic within the ramp.

9. Bicycle racks could be placed on the street instead of the sidewalk. A wall or other barrier would be required to protect bicycles and users from motorized traffic in the street. On-street parking is the solution for many short-term car parking spots, and it may be one solution for short term bicycle parking as well. One advantage of this approach is that the spots are highly visible and possibly closer to destinations than other locations. Many bicycles can be parked in the space required for one car, so many spots could be added with minimal loss of car spaces. Cities around the US are starting to convert car spots to bike spots. If plowing in the winter is a problem (as I have heard), these spots could be seasonal, as bicycle parking demand obviously goes down (but not away!) in the winter.

10. A private-public partnership or a for-profit enterprise may be viable avenues for development of facilities. Especially with regard to long-term bicycle parking, it is possible to make bike parking profitable. A business with underutilized space may wish to offer guarded bicycle parking for daily commuters. This would not even require racks, but simply a secure place to leave one’s bike. State Street is not the ideal location for this because of a lack of large employers. This concept would work very well near the GEF buildings. (See comments above about proposed Bike Station.)

11. Large event sponsors or destinations may want to consider “valet” bicycle parking. In the past, Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin provided this service for the Great Taste of the Midwest and the Madison Blues Festival, both in Olin Park. A non-profit group or even a for-profit enterprise could park bikes for events such as Maxwell Street Days, Taste of Madison, Farmers’ Market, Overture Center events, Orpheum concerts, etc.  The sponsor or group would need to find a location to store the bikes while patrons attend the event, but the location would not need to be as close as optimal racks.

12. Consider vertical storage. Lockers exist which allow bicycles to be parked on two levels. I have tested some of the devices at conferences, and even a short woman with little upper body strength (me) can place a bicycle in the upper berth. Some racks are made that hang bikes by the front wheel. This allows bicycle parking in less horizontal space than a standard rack.

Next steps

The above ideas are just off the top of my head. I am not an urban designer, planner, parking expert, or engineer. I have also not studied the problem except as a user of the facilities (or lack thereof.) As with any change in city policy, investment, or public need, I would suggest we do a study of the issues and problems and come up with a set of formal recommendations. Below are some steps that should be included to reach a solutions to the problem of inadequate bicycle parking downtown.

Several different city departments will need to be consulted, but I would suggest that the lead department should be Planning. They work with the downtown business community, neighborhood groups, economic development interests, City Engineering, Mall Concourse (housed in the Parks Dept), and Traffic Engineering (Parking Utility and the Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator) on a regular basis. Planning has the staff and expertise to work with all these interests.

Survey existing bicycle parking facilities. Traffic Engineering and Mall Concourse should have a list and count of all the bike racks in the State St/Capital Square area, but I wonder if they also include the racks in the parking ramps. If these counts and location maps need to be updated, that should be done.

Survey where bikes are parked, both legally and illegally. I have done occasional counts on State St, and often found 140% more bikes parked than there are legal and appropriate parking spots. We need to know what the demand is in order to meet said demand. Surveys should be done during the day midweek, during Farmers Market, when there is an evening event (for instance Overture), and on weekends, both daytime and evening. Art Fair on the Square, Concerts on the Square, Maxwell St Days, or other special events should be included in these surveys.

Talk to business owners. Some may have ideas, others concerns. I have heard from some business interests that they are very concerned about the lack of adequate parking for their customers. Others may not realize that their customers come by bike. Still others are actively opposed to additional bike parking in front of their business.

Talk to the Madison Police Department and Mall Concourse about how to solve the abandoned bike problem. Tagging and removing abandoned bikes does not seem to be a priority, or even a regular event, however I believe it is crucial to solving this problem.

Survey bicyclists parking downtown. These are the customers for the facilities. There are likely many categories and corresponding needs with the bicycling community: business customers, daytime commuters, event attendees, downtown residents (who probably have nowhere else to park, so use racks that should be available for short term parkers), downtown employees, etc.

Consider the needs of different users. Some of these bicyclists may be willing to park slightly farther away, in less convenient spots, if given better, more secure facilities. For instance, if someone will be parking for several hours every day (commuters), they may give up a spot in front of their place of business if their options are expanded to locked, covered, or otherwise upgraded facilities. Downtown residents may need a place to store their bikes overnight or for winter. Again, we may be able to make more street spots available if we move long term parking elsewhere. Also, some consideration of paid bicycle parking may be appropriate for optimum spots and facilities. (See suggestions of lockers, “bike stations,” and public-private partnerships.)

Survey space that could be converted to bicycle parking. Bicycle parking can be clumped together - like a parking ramp, or dispersed - like street spots for cars, but using post and ring or 2-bike spots.

Come up with a plan to meet the demand! Again, this might involve a list of recommendations, such as long term solutions, such as structured bicycle parking, as well as short term or policy changes using existing facilities.

Todd Dr "bike lanes" are not

Earlier today, I posted a blog entry/rant about crossing the Beltline by bike or foot. It all bubbled up because there was yet another bicycle-car crash on Whitney Way neat the Beltline. Why does it seem we obsess and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to be sure car drivers are safe, and yet we can't spend a fraction of that to make sure that people using non-motorized transportation also have safe and convenient facilities.

Instead of tacking on the post below to the earlier one, I thought I'd tell a story about a time when we did have money to do things right, and yet the money ended up elsewhere, and the results were not even safe when the project was done.

Back when I was an alder and Mike Rewey was just leaving the Wisconsin DOT, Mr Rewey got some funding to fix a safety problem: people were trying to get across the Beltline between Fish Hatchery Rd and Park St. They were cutting holes in the fence and running across the Beltline. some of them got hurt doing that. 

Why were they taking such risks? Because they wanted to get to jobs in the area of Greenway Cross, and they lived in the Burr Oaks and Bram's Addition areas of the city, which is traditionally a lower income area, in other words, full of people who would like to work at the entry-level jobs in the area directly across the Beltline from them. The Fish Hatchery Rd crossing of the Beltline is not friendly to pedestrians, and for people on foot, it's pretty far out of the way to just get across the highway.

So Mr. Rewey got funding to build a pedestrian-bike bridge to connect the two pieces of Perry St on either side of the Beltline. 

View Larger Map

However, some of the businesses in the area were concerned with making this connection, and the project was killed by the local alder. The money was diverted to another project farther west, rebuilding Todd Dr. 

There was just one problem, and that was that Wisconsin generally doesn't allow targeted bicycle and pedestrian money to be used just to add sidewalks and bike lanes when a road is rebuilt. The Wisconsin DOT, and the various MPOs and municipalities that follow the WisDOT guidelines, figure that bike lanes and sidewalks are part of the roadway anyway, and since it's not really all that expensive to add them when the road is being rebuilt, you don't have to use a special, and very limited pot of money to out them in.

I argued that this was an inappropriate use of the funds that were supposed to alleviate a very specific safety problem, but I lost that battle and the money was used to add "bicycle and pedestrian accommodations" to the Todd Dr . project. 

So imagine my chagrin when I went down to Johannsen's Greenhouse, next to the rebuilt intersection, and found that the "bike lanes" were to the right of a right-turn-only lane! Uh huh. So you are riding along in the "bike lanes" - note that they are not actually marked as such, because they are in the wrong place - and all those cars are going to be cutting you off to get on the Beltline. Great. 

After a couple of years of noticing this, I finally remembered to mention it to a couple of people who should be able to fix it. I sure hope so, because what exists now is very dangerous. And really, this is what we get when we put in "bicycle and pedestrian accommodations" with money allocated to solve a bicycle-pedestrian safety problem? I sure as hell hope not!

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?!

Thanks to City Engineering for being responsive

Sometimes we need to thank people for doing the right thing. Public employees have gotten beat up a lot in Wisconsin over the last few months, and I'd like to be sure we thanks them when they respond to citizen input and concerns. OK, I may have a bit more pull, because I know who to email or call, due to my alder tenure, but I'm just an average, if well informed citizen.

Yesterday, I sent the email below to the Madison City Engineer, Rob Phillips along with the photo seen below.

Rob - 

Not sure who on your staff is overseeing the N Lake St project. Please forward as needed.
Please see attached photo. It is facing the northbound traffic, i.e. the direction that is allowed during the project.  

Why do bicyclists need to walk? Most bicyclists are going to be going the same speed or faster than the motorized traffic in this area, so I see no reason why they can't ride int he lane, just like everyone else. 

Perhaps this sign is courtesy of the contractor, who simply does not recognize the legal status and abilities of bicyclists. If so, could you have a word with them to have them take it down?

Now, if they want to put that sign up facing southbound - where bicyclists will certainly be wanting to make the transition from Langdon to State St - that would make more sense. However, I am hoping that there will soon be a small counterflow lane on N Lake for bicyclists. The Lakeshore Path => Langdon => State St route is a pretty major bike route without a good alternative. (See below regarding this discussion at a City-UW committee.) 

Moving on to the Langdon project that will be coming up later this summer, at the Joint West Campus Area Committee, we asked if it would be possible to keep a counterflow lane open for bicyclists during the project. I would guess that both the 800 block of Langdon and N Lake between State and Langdon get as much or more bicycle traffic than car traffic in summer. Since the State St Mall does not allow biking, and University is very far out of the way for those trying to get from State St to the Lakeshore Path - a very major bike route - I would hope this request from our meeting could be accommodated.  

Thanks for your help in these matters.

I got an email back this morning, with various City Engineering staff cc'd, agreeing that the sign could be removed. I'm headed down that way now, but I assume that it is either gone or will be soon. 

So, I just wanted to thank City Engineering for responding so quickly. I expected that they would recognize that bicyclists are both legal users of the road, so there is no reason they need to walk their bikes instead of riding them, because this is Madison, and staff are very supportive of bicycling, but taking care of the problem is what really counts.