The point is this did not have to be a headache; that's why one engages
in planning and explores solutions versus concluding that there is no
solution when most people would agree that there is a short term
solution involving either rubber mats or crushed limestone. City
engineering should have solicited ideas from the community of
pedestrians and cyclists. I gladly would have offered a handful of
solutions for free that would have solved the problem. How many times
does the city get a free pass on this kind of scenario??? Seems to
happen way too often.
Peter Gray wrote:
I understand and share everyone's frustration - I also want to echo
Chuck Strawser's comments. I was at the same meeting. The problems of
communication and execution from the City arise from the City trying
to be helpful by accelerating the project to have it done in time for
Bike Week, June 6-13. The Bike Fed decided this year to move Bike Week
from its usual week in May to June, when the weather is better to
market the appeal of bicycling. This was a late surprise (in terms of
an engineering project planning timeline) to the City and they moved
to be rush the project.
I do agree with India and others that at a minimum:
1) detour signage needs to be positioned where people riding bikes
don't need to double back.
2) given the obvious "desire path" being created on the grass, rubber
mats would help.
This was bound to be a short-term headache no matter what, and we will
be happy with the long-term result.
Peter
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Brian Mink <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm not trying to beat up Tony. He generally does an admirable
job. In this instance the forethought, execution and result:
ignoring an alternative route on Madison's busiest bike route is
incomprehensible and I would argue inexcusable. I encourage Tony
to spend and hour between 7:00 and 8:00 AM along the construction
route and watch what is happening. Cyclists, myself included are
either using John Nolen or the grass strip just inside the curb as
an alternative route. The grass will be destroyed by the time the
project has been completed. I think anyone looking at this before
the project could have easily predicted what has happened and just
made a command decision to either close a lane of John Nolen or as
I suggested yesterday, creat a temporary limestone path just to
the inside of the curb. Given the volume of pedestrian and cycle
traffic a John Nolen lane appropriation would likely have been the
most prudent course of action. City engineering staff should never
forget that pedestrians and cyclists are vulnerable users and
therefore one ought to take greater care than ignoring the issue
when planning for pedestrian and cycle route closures.
Brian Mink
Monona
Brian Mink wrote:
I agree Steve and Melanie. I think Tony's response if frankly a
cop out. Basically says there was not a perfect solution so we
opted to do nothing. I think that is frankly a lame approach to a
significant problem. We live in a world where there is seldom an
ideal solution. Heaven help us if we can implement solutions that
are less than perfect. This is precisely why folks get so
frustrated with government, analysts, and policy makers. Most of
us are just fine with a less than ideal solution. We want some
attempt made to solve the problem. One could use Tony's
rationalization at every level of government as an excuse to do
nothing. Which is exactly what has been done. The excuse that the
city often closes streets and os not implement detours is fine
for cars because it is no big deal to use you 2-5 liter engine to
go out of your way a few blocks. The attitude in my mind is very
cavalier and I don't think we're comparing apples to apples.
Brian Mink
Monona, WI
Steve Goldstein wrote:
On 5/8/15 12:13 AM, Melanie Foxcroft wrote:
I think this is another demonstration of why Madison doesn't
receive a "platinum" award for bicycling. This disaster is
simply not acceptable. The double standard of cars vs. bikes
is too much. Hopefully city transportation people will learn
from this disaster and do better next time.
The "city transportation people" are the traffic engineers who,
after considering the alternatives, have been forced into this
decision because nothing else meets minimum engineering
standards. We all see the logic of Tony's deliberations and
conclusions.
The problem is that an engineering-only approach doesn't solve
this problem and that was the end of the discussion. If there
were enough political pressure, the discussion could have
started out with the *requirement* that the most heavily
traveled bike route in the city remain passable during one of
the peak months of biking. If that were the case, other
alternatives might have been on the table --- for example,
staging the project to enable access or closing lanes on John
Nolen.
Many on this list will recall the activism opposing of the
closing of the Law Park path during construction of the
convention center achieved partial success. Tony's sensitivity
to the issues shows some things have improved over the past
twenty years, but this disaster shows we need more effective
activism.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
