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!"?

Business owner freaks out over bike lanes

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

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

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

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

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

Others called and expressed their displeasure. One wrote:

After his initial diatribe we actually talked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• etc.

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

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

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."

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?

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.

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.

Design for new Madison train station

Today Jonathan Zarov interviewed me on WORT about the new train station design that was unveiled Wednesday at the Urban Design Commission (UDC.) He also asked me about whether the new governor could stop the station, and whether there was any chance that the location of the station was still up in the air. (That's a "no" to both questions.)

But when he asked me where people could view the draft design of the station, I realized that digging through the city's web site to find it is pretty tough. So it is linked above for easy reference.

Catching up after Chattanooga Road trip

I've been remiss in posting, in part because I've been out of town on a road trip/business trip. I'm going to write a few short posts to comment on the trip, but here's the outline of what I did:

Updates and tidbits on Madison-Milwaukee rail

Last Thursday was the monthly Long Range Transportation Planning Committee meeting. The Wisconsin DOT had promised an update and opportunity to discuss the project at each of our meetings, but they didn't show in July.

Fortunately, the August meeting was much more productive on this front. Paul Trombino, Divisions Operations Director at WisDOT and the point person on the decision to cancel the station in Oconomowoc, came to the meeting a little after 6 PM. He had been delayed by some follow-up work on the Oconomowoc decision. (Was he perhaps being held hostage in his Hill Farms office?) He gave us far more details than we had had in the past, and was very forthcoming in answering questions. This was a great improvement over our disappointment at the no-show in July.

Here's what we learned:

The DOT will own the Madison station. They will also operate the station. This means that the City does not have to budget for the maintenance and operations of the station. This had been a very big question at the July meeting, and neither the DOT nor new mayoral aide Chris Klein - formerly executive assistant to DOT Frank Busalacchi - knew whether the City would be responsible for paying these costs.

Passenger rail runs will not be delayed by freight trains. This is a problem for many Amtrak routes, as freight lines have priority in use of the tracks, and passenger trains often have to wait for freight trains to slowly pass through or maneuver onto sidings before the passenger trains can pass. This will not be the case for the Chicago-Madison trains, and there will be on-time targets that will hold freight lines responsible for making sure the passenger service can get through. This is very important, because freight trains will indeed be using the same tracks as the passenger service.

Corridor construction will start this fall. This won't be happening within the City quite yet, but the work in the more rural segments of the line can be done during the winter. Quite a it of track upgrade and some "land bridges" - crossing of wetlands and other difficult soils - is actually better done in cold weather.

Roll-on/roll-off service will be provided for bicycles. Across the country, this service is being requested on Amtrak and other passenger rail routes. This allows bicycles to be brought onto the train without needing to disassemble the bike or put it in a box. Roll-on/roll-off service allows bicyclists to bike to and from the train easily, which in turn supports the rail service and extends the "passenger shed" - that area of a city where passengers can easily access the train. Generally, there is either an area of the baggage car or an area of each passenger car that has bike racks or hanging hooks where bikes can be secured.

In cities like Madison and Milwaukee, where bicycling is a common and encouraged form of transportation, having a bicycle when you exit the train allows users to get to their final destination or home without needing a car or waiting for the bus. But other communities along the way have been requesting this service so that visitors can access the trails and other recreational destinations directly from the train. This is really great news.

Some amount of "convenient," "reasonably-priced" parking is required for rail passengers in Madison. The reason I put these terms in quotes is because people may have different ideas about what is convenient and what is reasonably priced. I did a little on-line research, and there are lots of Amtrak locations, even on commuter lines, that do not have any overnight parking available. Many others have overnight parking in more remote locations, and the parking closest to the station are fairly pricey hourly spots.

This is a big question still up in the air. Madison's Parking Utility pays all of its costs via user fees - that is, the cost of meters, ramps, staffing of ramps, repair of ramps, and even the capital cost of building new ramps or surface lots is paid for by those that park there. Want more parking? That means the parking rates will likely go up.

The closest ramp to the Madison Station is the Government East ramp, and it is in very bad shape. Regardless of happens with the train, that ramp needs to be rebuilt. Because land in downtown is valuable, and a parking rap is generally not considered a good above-ground use for urban land, the Transit and Parking Commission has stated that it wants to build any new ramp underground, thereby reserving the street front and air rights for retail, residential, hotel, or office uses.

Smart move, but expensive. Going underground is always expensive. Just replacing the existing number of spots - just over 500 - will probably cost well over $50,000 PER SPACE. Yup, the cost of one parking spot is measured in tens of thousands of dollars. I have even heard estimates as high as $75,000 per space. All of that has to be paid for by those parking at meters or in the ramps.

Now the DOT wants cheap, "convenient" parking for train passengers as well. If they expect the City to subsidize parking for train passengers, this undercuts the entire concept of the Parking Utility - that users pay the full cost. So will the DOT chip in some money for those extra spots next door to the station? Or perhaps they will decide that, in order to get less expensive parking, they are willing to have people parking in one of the other, cheaper, less crowded city ramps. That's what other cities do.

A stakeholders group is being set up by the DOT and Mayor to deal with corridor issues within the City. Representatives of neighborhoods along the route, business interests, alders, and other interested parties will be appointed to advise DOT on corridor issues: crossings, safety, noise, aesthetics, lighting, etc. The DOT is not required to follow their recommendations, but they will be very important in providing input and expertise on these issues.

The City and DOT are still considering whether it will be possible to move the railroad tracks that run through Central Park. That would both allow a better use of the land for the park and cut down on the need to cross the tracks between Baldwin and Ingersoll.

The City is applying for a TIGER grant from the federal government in order to build a true multi-modal station, with not just car parking, but also a bike station, transit hub, and public market. TIGER stands for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery and is part of the Recovery Act. TIGER grants are designed, in the word of the US DOT "...to spur a national competition for innovative, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional transportation projects that promise significant economic and environmental benefits to an entire metropolitan area, a region or the nation."

Finally, there will be another Public Information Meeting at the new station, AKA the Dept of Administration Bldg, on Tuesday, August 31, 4:30-7:30 PM.

And I must say, the DOT has gotten a lot better about getting information up on their web site. I've worked with, or at least tried to influence DOT projects and  policy for over a decade, and they are generally not known for being the most transparent organization. But they are now putting up news releases, posters from public meetings, maps, and much more. I think this will both help the public get information and give feedback, as well as help the DOT answer critics that claim everything is happening behind closed doors.

I'll try to continue to update information as it becomes available. It's no secret that I think this project is important to the transportation future of Madison and the entire region. I want the DOT to hear the opinions and concerns of the public, but I also want this project to go forward without delay. I think both can easily be achieved.

Madison families out on bikes - at night!

Last night, as I rode home from a city meeting on a beautiful, warm summer night, I noticed how many families were out on bikes in downtown. It was already dark, and yet here were kids and parents biking around in the middle of the city.  (Most of the kids were in the 9-13 year old range I'm guessing: old enough to ride their own bikes, but still willing to be seen with mom or dad.)

What a great scene, on so many levels.

Families feel comfortable in downtown and want to be there. That is not true of all American cities, but Madison has a thriving nightlife, not just for college students, young professionals, or the Overture crowd, but also for parents with kids.

Madison is a safe place for kids to ride a bike, and parents are riding too. Sure, I'm not going to send a six-year old out alone, and the downtown can have some pretty confusing traffic situations, so older kids need to be supervised, but biking is a normal and safe way to get around as a family.

That's due to not just engineering - paths, bike lanes, painted markings, etc - but also the entire culture of biking in Madison. In many parts of the city bikes are a normal part of the street scene. That means that a bicyclist sees others out there and doesn't feel like a freak. Drivers are used to seeing bicyclists and understand how to share the road. New bicyclists or the timid know that there are others that bike and can ask advice.

Biking at night is even considered normal and safe. Lots of people bike during the day and in warm weather. But a large number of people won't venture out after dark or in less than ideal weather. But last night the downtown was buzzing with people getting around by bike at night. The families are likely to have lights, because parents that take their kids to downtown by bike tend to be experienced bicyclists. That means they know how important lights are. We wouldn't drive at night without lights. Why would we bike at night without lights?

Now, if we could only convince the 18-30 year old crowd to use lights as well. But that's another blog post.

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.

Mayor Dave - stop using Edgewater as an example

Note: I wrote this entry back in mid-June, right after the Mayor's State of the City address, and his announcement that he wanted to "fix the development process." I never posted it, because I wanted to add some links, and never got around to looking them up. 

Now Bob Dunn has threatened a counter suit to the one questioning the approval process. He's acting like a spoiled kid (again), and that just brought all this Edgewater stuff back. The Cap Times ran an editorial titled, "Coming to a neighborhood near you: less influence."  And Marsha Rummel has organized a neighborhood summit this Saturday to talk about the proposals to "fix the process."

So once again, the Edgewater rears its ugly head as example one of "what's wrong with the development process." Well, I think that should stop. Read what I initially wrote back on June 16. I was mad, and still am. 

The Mayor wants to "fix the development process." He said this immediately after the Landmarks Commission rejected the Edgewater plan for the first time, and now he has brought it back up in his State of the City speech and at the Economic Development Commission.

He should stop using the Edgewater as an example of a typical Madison process for a development, because it isn't typical, and it just reminds people how that project split the city. The Edgewater process was long and painful for two reasons. It was an expensive, controversial project that had some very good arguments against it (principally breaking just about every TIF rule and rejection twice by the Landmarks Commission), and the process was bungled by the developer and many of his allies.

And let me say right up front that I had no strong feelings about the Edgewater development as a building. My main objection was the TIF process, which violated almost every rule the Council and the Planning Department had put in place to safeguard the Madison taxpayers and make the TIF allocations fair to all applicants. It took a lot of bad faith and arrogance to anger me to the point of disgust about how the public process was being handled.

In my six years as alder and the time since, I have never seen a development handled so poorly. The list of missteps is far too long to enumerate here, but starts with the public involvement. It was clear from the start that the developer had no respect for public opinion, and he resorted to astroturf support when people spoke out against him. When the developer presented his plans to the public, he was sure that he would prevail, because he had lined up all the correct supporters behind the scenes, as is common in large cities where he is accustomed to operating.

The problem is that most of the Madison decision makers actually have respect for the public process, and they rebelled at the back room dealings that were going on. The citizens that volunteer their time on city commissions, city staff, and the immediate neighbors were disrespected and dismissed. City staff won't complain in public, because they have too much professionalism, but I was appalled by what I heard "off the record."

The Edgewater process amounted to dragging an unhappy, sick kid, kicking and screaming, to a folk or classical concert you want to see. You got the kid to the physical location you wanted, and you are there to see the concert, but  the kid is going to disturb everyone else at the event, make them sick, make them hate you for bringing the kid, and piss off the kid as well. Then you complain that you didn't enjoy the concert, and the sound wasn't very good.

At some point you have to say, "Is this really a good idea?" Perhaps the Edgewater had so many problems, not because the Madison development process is broken, but because it isn't a good project, and the developers screwed up the process themselves.

Mayor Dave - stop using the Edgewater as an example. How about looking at how smoothly the Target and the moderate-income housing next to it created barely a ripple. What about all the projects that were passed in your first six years? Even in this economy, there is construction almost everywhere you look (except the periphery, and I don't mind seeing sprawl stall a bit.)

If you want to reform the development process, look a bit beyond the last time someone stood up and said, "No." Look at all the times they said, "Yes," and see what made those projects so easy.

Of course you can bike with luggage!

On my neighborhood listserv, there has been a debate raging about the best location for the new intercity rail station. (This despite the fact that that decision has already been made.)

One person said she was very happy with the downtown location, because she could easily get there by bike. Another person scoffed at the idea of people carrying their suitcase to the train via bike.

That's when I had to jump in.

I wrote:
OK, I have to defend getting to other modes of travel via bike.

I have biked to the airport with a small backpack or set of panniers. You know, about the size of an airline carry-on. No sweat. I have also taken the bus to the airport many times with a suitcase. Ditto for taking the bus to downtown to catch the Van Galder (to O'Hare.)

Carrying the stuff by bike is really not a big deal, especially if you have a trailer or rack on the back of your bike. However, the bus or bike to the airport is a lesson in inconvenience. Two buses to get from campus to the airport, less than 10 miles away? Insanity! And biking there takes self-confidence on the roads and a knowledge of the back ways that most bicyclists don't have. (Cabs from my house are well over $20 with tip, and for that price, I might as well take the bus to Chicago and avoid one connection.)

However, getting to downtown by bike or bus is definitely easier and less stressful. Obviously, the farther you get into a car-dependent environment, farther from regular bus routes and nice bike options, the less convenient the downtown looks.

But I will gladly trade a bit longer on the bus or train for being stuck on the Beltline or any major arterial during peak hour. One advantage of rail - either within the city or between cities - is that they don't get stuck in traffic. On one memorable Badger Bus trip, I was walking distance from my destination - 84th St in West Allis - but could reach it because we were stuck in Brewers traffic.

What many people forget is that there are already many people traveling from Milwaukee on a semi-regular basis just for day-trips. You would be amazed at the number of people that commute to or from Milwaukee EVERY DAY. Those people aren't carrying anything more than a shoulder bag or laptop. State workers, lobbyists, researchers at the University, private business people, etc. head both ways 2-5 times per week.

I was fine with the station being either downtown or at Yahara Station. As long as it wasn't at the airport, we could have made it work. There were advantages and disadvantages to both urban locations. DOT picked downtown, likely because they already owned the property, which obviously makes moving forward faster and easier.

Whether you agree with the location or not, the decision has been made. If you want rail to succeed - and I think most people in this neighborhood do want it to succeed - our energies can best be spent now in making the location chosen as attractive and accessible as possible.

Go to the public meetings. Ask the DOT questions. Tell them what you think. And keep up with when and how further decisions will be made, because yes, things are going to happen pretty fast. Although I will be the first to criticize the DOT "public input process" in most cases, and I think they could be doing a far better job with this one, I have seen evidence that public input is being considered and incorporated into the plans.

By the way, the Long Range Transportation Plan Committee meets the third Thursday each month, and the DOT has committed to coming and giving us an update on this project each month. This is also an opportunity for public comment, as is true with all city meetings. 5:00 PM in the Municipal Bldg. Rooms may change in the fall, so check the city's web site.

The Council will be getting updates for 1/2 hour before their first meeting of the month: First Tuesday in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov. At only 1/2 hour, I don't think they are taking public comments, but you can go and listen in. 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers - 2nd floor of the City/County Bldg.

Thanks to John Luton for photos (and for travel advice in Victoria, BC) 

Washington DC - House of Cars - an exhibit at the National Building Museum

Every year I take a trip to Washington, DC for business. It's a great city to visit and explore, a wonderful place to walk, and a real treat for those who love to learn. Most of the museums are free, and even office buildings are worth a peak inside. There are public spaces everywhere, both indoors and outdoors, and  that is a good thing, because a trip to DC is often exhausting, and a place to sit down is welcome. In the next few days I'm going to try to write a little about some of my favorite sites and experiences.

Today I went to the National Building Museum, which I recommend to anyone that is interested in urban design, cities, and land use in general. The building itself is spectacular, originally built for the US Pension Bureau after the Civil War. Even if you just love beautiful, grand architecture, you should stop by if you are in Washington.

The museum is currently hosting an exhibit about the history of the parking garage. It really makes you think about the way we accommodate car “at rest,” as the entrance to the exhibit phrases it.We think about cars as something that gives us freedom and mobility, a thing devoted to motion. But most of the time, our cars are not moving. They aren't even on the street, but in a lot or parking garage. We as individuals, business owners, urban designers and civic leaders have had to decide how to store cars at home, work, and all the other locations we take our cars. And the evolution of the parking garage has reflected our attitudes towards both cars and urban design. It has even reflected our attitudes towards cities. We have to decide how much land we want to devote towards housing cars. And we have to decide what those structures should look like.

At the link above are some other interesting links to more contemplation of the car, parking garages, and how parking reflects our social values.

Nobody walks there

Image courtesy of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center/Dan Burden

Once again tonight, I heard someone testify that sidewalks weren't needed in a certain location because, "Nobody walks there." In this case, the location was a light industrial area on the edge of town, so it's quite possible that the pedestrian traffic is quite light, but areas where nobody walks are very rare.

More often, drivers simply don't see the pedestrians. If you look closely, there is often a "desire line" in the grass or dirt next to the road. These "goat paths" are called desire lines, because they indicate a desire to walk and a need for sidewalks.

Pros and cons of working at home

Yes, it's nice to be able to work in very casual clothes, so casual that you wouldn't wear them out of the house. Yes, it's nice to be able to eat your own food and not have to travel on nasty roads or in rainy weather. Yes, setting your own schedule is very useful.

But there are drawbacks to working at home. The principal one for me is that I feel cut off from the rest of the world, and sometimes don't even leave the house. It's especially tempting to stay in when the weather sucks. Today's weather wasn't really too bad, as long as you weren't planning on traveling anywhere, but seeing snowing falling makes me less likely to venture out, unless it's time to ski or snowshoe. So it was mid-afternoon before I went out to shovel and see what the world was up to.

I also don't work well when I don't have the input and feedback of other people. Perhaps that's why I feel energized and tend to be more productive after I get back from a conference: I'm full of ideas.

And the most likely place for me to find the people to interact with is the coffee shop. Even when I was working downtown, a trip to Ancora was often the most productive part of my day. I'd be trying to reach people all morning - leaving voice mail messages, emailing, and playing telephone tag - and finally say, "I'm headed over to Ancora for a cup." And hour and a half later I'd wander back into the office. While walking the block to the coffee shop, or waiting in line, I'd see most of the people I'd been trying to reach all day.

So here is another reason for the efficiency of urban area: As I mentioned in a previous post, casual encounters are increased, and it is easier to take advantage of these casual encounters, when you are walking and using local shops. If I had worked in a large office building, or had to drive to errands on break, I wouldn't run into people from other employers or offices. Those encounters were what drove both by advocacy work at Bicycle Federation and my alder work. Being able to talk to people without an appointment, without a plan to discuss anything in particular, stokes work creativity.

Obviously, I'm not the first person to notice this, and the link between density and creativity is a familiar theme of Richard Florida, but this is an observation of my own behavior and needs. YMMV

New urbanism: Where's the door?

In the last week I have twice been to places in Middleton that seemed to have one address, but apparently have their main entrance off a parking lot.

Unfamiliar with either location, I looked up the addressed on Google Maps. Both are in "new urbanist" areas, and the streets where their primary addresses are located appear to be relatively transit/pedestrian/bicyclist friendly. Sort of. At least they are trying to be those things.