Robbie,
I was disappointed that you mischaracterized the lane width as 'unsafe' ---
that's not the case as any bicycle planner or engineer knows. The proposed
width will be safer as long as the design treatments carry out a complete
streets concept reasonably well, in accordance with accepted definitions of
the terms 'safety' and 'complete street', and successfully strikes a
balance optimizing for all users. That balance will vary according to the
context, so it misconstrues the concept to say a predetermined width is
unsafe under these shared space circumstances. (or under any & all
circumstances)
As Michael Rewey's recent comment also did in citing Midvale's experience,
in which he quite rigidly and even openly presumed to dictate what width the
road on Williamson should always be, and how narrow it could never be. ("I
stated this morning that it was OK to narrow Willy Street from 48 feet to
44 feet .. . I was in error [sic]. . . . I ma sure that after the
discussion on Midvale that Darin Burleigh will agree.") Obviously Midvale
and Williamson are two very different streets, carrying different kinds of
traffic, through distinctly different land use contexts -- one's a retail
district, the other residential -- built during different eras, and each
with plainly different pedestrian volumes. So each requires a very
different treatment.
To swoop in on the tail-end of an extended discussion, all in agreement with
still other folks who also did not participate in that reconstruct
planning process, presuming to dictate a predetermined conclusion about lane
width without listening to what cyclists had to say about this street and
the balance they wanted to achieve here, really feels like an awkward
miscue. Mr. Rewey's comments, like yours, indicated you didn't know that
Williamson is now actually narrower at 42 feet, for a significant stretch,
than your ideological minimum. The suggestion that "not all the bicyclists
were consulted" is ironic at best. It is you who've not consulted anyone.
While I appreciate the balance in your first email, dropping scare-bombs of
'unsafe' in on the discussion at this point is the tactic of a traffic
engineer, as is the context-free, one-size-fits-all, let's-widen-this-baby
default position apparently standard in some quarters. And seriously,
the expertise of bicyclists who were consulted and did contribute from the
get-go deserve better than that kind of dismissiveness. Buzzing in on a
hard-won consensus without even a dose of humility is the public process
equivalent of the neon-*lycra-clad* cyclist buzzing moms w/strollers on the
multi-use paths, frightening flocks of elderly strollers at full speed and
blowing through stop signs .. . . just because they think they're better
bikers.
Look, Madison needs *real* Complete Streets. Not the gimcrackery of flashy
bike boxes. Not a policy, but actual complete streets. Like the rest of
the country. We will never receive Platinum ranking as a bike-friendly city
-- and we never *should* be named a Platinum-ranked city -- without real
complete streets.
Privileging bicycles using the same mindset that car-centric road engineers
used in privileging motor vehicles for the last 100 years does not do
anything to shape economically beneficial traffic patterns, let alone a
sustainable transportation system. Cyclists will still face the same
hazardous traffic conditions. They'll just be *next to* dangerous
conditions and still just as vulnerable as they were before (see TDPF for
the recent Atwood hit-&-run for more collateral damage generated by
old-school engineering for 'safety').
Madison's current practice has damaged our civic spaces and badly undercut
our retail districts. For a city that claims to care about economic
development, the most basic and effective policy just isn't there. Decade
after decade, there's been no real investment in Williamson Street or its
streetscapes, leaving retailers without the standard features and civic
spaces that make or break business districts. You'd think, if supporting
the ability of our businesses to compete was *really* a concern, that
getting the street and streetscape up-to-speed with widely-accepted practice
would be a high priority. Then again, capitalizing on such an
obviously vital economic engine *is *kind of a no-brainer.
The classic urban street we idolize is functionally dismantled by the
grossly imbalanced cars-same-as-ever-bikes-same-as-cars policy we've had to
live with here. Widening streets to install wider bike lanes cuts out the
heart of New Urbanist practice. It evades the whole point of New Urbanism
by further disconnecting neighborhoods --- and you don't need to read Donald
Appleyard to understand how corrosive to the 'city ethic' that really is.
Laying out that prairie-wide bike lane next to that wide, wide vehicle lane
doesn't remove the root problem, it just disarticulates the elements of a
street so they no longer work well together, further decreasing
safety. Paul Soglin was always proud of defeating the proposed Isthmus
highway, decades ago, but we've incrementally built a set of de facto
highways that incur the same damage Soglin tried to avoid.
The result is lateral sprawl, grossly over-wide roads that undermine Dave's
stated goals. Obese streets. Pedestrians pay the price in longer
cross-times and avoid the degraded civic spaces, further rupturing the urban
fabric we do have. We've lost tax base for no real reason as private
property was taken along Monona Drive (but not, predictably, on the Monona
side of the street), losing dozens of mature silver maples -- for a bike
lane that defeats the purpose of multi-modal shared streets. When bicycle
advocates and bike lanes are the tools that enable the same reflexive
road-widening so often criticized by ... bicycle advocates, something's gone
very wrong.
Resorting to this lateral sprawl simply because it's the easy way out just
produces unhealthy streets. Obese streets. And bloated, auto-centric
streets drive down investment and drive up per-capita property taxes.
Adding street width against all best practices repeats the same
road-building mistakes that disrupted commercial activity in places like
East Wash in the first place. The trade-off just is not worth it, and
Exhibit A has to be the hundreds of mature trees cut down on Old University
because Madison can't design a modern roadway that maximizes our own
economic benefit.
Look, bicycles are not the be-all and end-all of sustainability, nor are
bikes even the first or most important element of complete streets. Some
balance is necessary. Marsha in her (*great*) letter neatly pointed out
that Williamson has the bike path, and the (so-far) bike-friendly Jenifer
Street, and on top of that cyclists are obviously comfortable riding all
over Willy Street. Those factors alone dictate a much different design than
was selected for Midvale -- and that treatment will more than account
for bicyclists' safety concerns.
Re Project Management:
- the lead laterals -- the DNR signed off on a delay, and asserting that
our hands are tied just doesn't fly. They went for it because they're good
at what they do: by combining work into one project they can meet two goals
at once, improving the quality of our impaired surface waters with the green
infrastructure components at the same time the lead laterals are replaced.
They also know they'll never get both if they settle for less than the best
possible outcome now.
- saying that delaying the lead laterals will have health consequences
has little merit. If the City of Madison had some deep-seated concern for
the health and well-being of local residents, it wouldn't have taken going
on FORTY years to get around to doing the laterals on Williamson. Another
few months isn't going to matter, but refusing to install the green
infrastructure piece will lock in negative impacts for decades.
- tight city finances -- any time you can execute two objectives (here, I
count 4) but only tear up the street once, the city saves a bundle. It's
basic project managment. If the City were serious about its budget
problems, Dave would be *running *to lock in a process that knocks out
multiple goals in a single project. It's more than strange that he's not
trumpeting the opportunity along with the finely-honed management skills
required to reap such savings.
- survival of local businesses -- cutting the time of disruption to
businesses in half is valid on its own, and again, if the city really held
economic development as a priority, there'd be no question there'd be a
delay designed to deliver a coordinated multi-purpose project.
- a better project isn't about minimizing damage, though doing it right
will deliver an enhanced streetscape & civic space -- turning a strong
negative hit on business into a big victory. Why would anyone sit still for
significant business losses when they could come out of all this with a real
asset that sets the stage for higher levels of economic activity?
- other cities -- none of these concepts are new or earth-shaking.
Supposedly backwater / retrograde / red-state cities are getting complete
streets and green infrastructure done, right now, and we're not anywhere
near the accomplishing much here, let alone getting near the cutting-edge
here. Ghetto strips are upgrading their streetscapes with more alacrity.
Seriously.
It's really disappointing that we're not able to get much political buy-in
for even the most basic complete street design concepts, when communities
across the country are eagerly embracing shared multimodal streets as the
obvious best option. While other cities race to install green
infrastructure, we lose ground because there doesn't seem to be the vision
or the interest to capitalize on concepts identified years ago by local
folks as the way to go. Obviously this isn't pointed at you, Robbie; but at
those who think that going through the motions could ever be enough, or
acceptable.
That is all.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Robbie Webber <[email protected]>wrote:
> Marsha wants to delay, but there is a federal mandate to replace the lead
> pipes next year. So we either get the street torn up twice, or once. And
> there is no way to do Willy St in 2012 because of other construction to be
> done in that year - including the rail construction. That means a
> several-year delay, not one year. Again, the pipes will definitely be
> replaced next year, so Willy will be torn up next year.
>
> I acknowledge that there are advantages to narrowing the street, and I
> tried to outline them. I mostly wanted people to be aware that this is
> coming up TONIGHT. The current plan is 44 feet, not 42, so you can come and
> speak or not, but tonight is the night. As I said, there are trade-offs, and
> not everyone may agree whether those trade-offs are worth it.
>
> Marsha will not be at the meeting, because she has another one that she
> cannot miss.
>
> As to the "East side biking community" agreeing on this, I do not remember
> this ever coming up on this list, nor do I remember others asking other
> bicyclists that may use the area but not live there. Willy St is used by
> more than just the neighbors, and not all the bicyclists were consulted, as
> far as I can tell.
>
> Again, I am trying to provide information, so that anyone on this list can
> make their own decisions if they want to speak to the issue.
>
> Robbie Webber
> Bike Walk Madison Steering Committee
> www.bikewalkmadison.org
> Join our group on Facebook!
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:32 PM, tim wong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Robbie has several things wrong on this. The east-side bicycling
>> community has been involved in this green streets redesign effort. We
>> strongly support the narrowing of the street, but, in addition, are urging
>> the city to delay this reconstruction until 2012 so that we can get the
>> "green streets" thing right--essentially a reversal of 60+ years of doing
>> streets reconstructions wrong, i.e., making streets wider, faster, and
>> mostly designed to get people to the suburbs faster.
>>
>> I will forward a letter we wrote to the city endorsing the narrower street
>> after this. The short of it is that there are three bicycling alternatives
>> within two blocks of Williamson St. In addition, Wmson east of Baldwin is
>> 42 feet wide, and no one is advocating widening it.
>>
>> The other reason to support narrowing is that it allows for wider
>> terraces, which permits taller trees to be planted, which provide more of a
>> canopy, which has been show to slow cars down, as well as more bike racks
>> and tables for restaurants who want outside seating. We are also hoping to
>> have the utilities undergrounded during reconstruction. The conduit is
>> being put in the ground, but the wires will stay above-ground, meaning the
>> trees will continue to be butchered by MGE, cable companies, etc.
>>
>> If the east-rail bike path, Jenifer, and Spaight were not so close, I
>> might not support this narrowing. But they are, so I do.
>>
>> I would strong urge all interested advocates, and especially 6th district
>> residents, to e-mail or call Marsha and urge her to support a delay until
>> 2012. So far she is standing with the city against the interests of the
>> neighborhood (it's a little more complicated than it looks). Marquette
>> Neighborhood Association and Schenk Atwood Starkweather Yahara (SASY)
>> neighborhood council have both endorsed the delay, MNA unanimously and SASY
>> with one dissenting vote. The alder, so far, is supporting Rob Phillips and
>> Engineering in their opposition to delay. Your e-mails and calls might
>> persuade her to support the delay. Thanks.
>>
>> tim
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Robbie Webber <[email protected]
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Just an FYI that the rebuild of Williamson St will be at the Board of
>>> Public Works tonight, in case anyone wants to weigh in on the new design. It
>>> looks like the public hearing will start at 6:30 PM, if I am reading the
>>> schedule correctly. It is item # 7 on the agenda linked below.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/meetings/2010/10/8326_A_BOARD_OF_PUBLIC_WORKS_10-10-20_Agenda.pdf
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *The Board of Public Works meets at the Water Utility Bldg - 119 Olin
>>> Ave.*
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late notice, but this sort of crept up on me, (and I'm no
>>> longer a paid bike advocate or alder.)
>>>
>>> The reason that this particular street rebuild might require extra
>>> attention is that the proposal is to NARROW the street, which could have
>>> implications for all street users.
>>>
>>> Right now the curb-to-curb width is 48 feet. The outside lane - shared by
>>> parked cars and bicyclists most of the day, and an active car travel lane
>>> during rush hour - is 13 feet. The inside lane is 11 feet.
>>>
>>> The new design would narrow the street to 44 feet, and the current
>>> proposal would be 4 lanes, each 11 feet. This will mean that the outside
>>> lane will no longer be wide enough for bicyclists and parked cars to safely
>>> share. The options for bicyclists on Willy St would be A) get in the active
>>> car (inside) lane, or B) ride really close to the parked cars and be passed
>>> unsafely by car on the street.
>>>
>>> The advantage of narrowing the street is that there will be more space
>>> for trees and other "street amenities," which Willy St sorely lacks. More
>>> space for walking, sidewalk cafes, bike racks, benches, etc. Presumably, the
>>> traffic will move more slowly as well.
>>>
>>> This is a definitely trade-off: worse for bicyclists, but better for the
>>> overall look and feel of the street. I am of very mixed feelings about
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Beyond where the curbs are placed, there is the matter of where the lane
>>> marking are drawn, which is not being decided tonight. I will be pushing for
>>> making the outside lanes 12 feet instead of 11. This would still be a tight
>>> squeeze for a parked car-bicyclist to share, but it is an additional foot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robbie Webber
>>> Bike Walk Madison Steering Committee
>>> www.bikewalkmadison.org
>>> Join our group on Facebook!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bikies mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you would like to sign a petition opposing Williamson St. Coop's
>> permanent driveway, go to the link
>> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/coop9876/petition.html<http://www.petitiononline.com/coop9876/petition.html>.Even
>> if you've signed the paper copy, sign this one especially if you have
>> a comment to add. Or buy a T-shirt: STOP THE DRIVEWAY. Inquire here.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
