Posts
As a passionate cyclist as well as someone who works directly in bicycle safety, the cycling aspect of the Monona Drive project is a huge concern to me. As I stated last night it has been proven that competent, adult cyclists should almost always ride in the street, with traffic, obeying all traffic laws. This does, however, preclude children, families with children, and those adult riders who are not competent cyclists (and obviously, "competent" is relatively broad). Many states/municipalities with laws prohibiting riding on the sidewalk will leave an exemption for either children, bicycles with wheels smaller than 26" (the adult standard) or both. As you heard at the meeting last night, the majority of the people who were standing up and noting that they will continue to ride on the sidewalk are those with children, and we should in no way insist or even encourage them to ride in the street due to the inherent danger.
What we need to come to grips with is that after the reconstruction, there are going to be two types of bike riders along this route:
1) Those (like myself) who are competent adult cyclists and will relish the opportunity to ride on smooth new pavement and well-marked bike lanes. This group includes commuters, "speed-freaks," people out for exercise, people on racing bicycles, etc. Some of these people do already ride on Monona Drive, but others are currently on the sidewalk since Monona Drive is in such deplorable condition. These riders won't use the sidewalk no matter how nice or wide it is.
2) People with small children, families, or those adults who, for whatever reason, aren't comfortable riding in traffic. Some of these people should be on the sidewalk (families), and some should be in the road (adults who are competent riders but just nervous about riding a 30lb bicycle amongst 4,000lb cars and SUVs), *but* the reality is that they will be on the sidewalk. It won't depend on whether the sidewalk is 6' or 8', it's that they feel that riding in the road is too dangerous. You could make the sidewalk 4' wide, and these people would still choose to ride it since they perceive that it is dangerous to ride in the street. I respectfully disagree with the woman who spoke in front of the Council in favor of the 6' sidewalks, as she was incorrect in her assumption that reducing the width of the sidewalk would discourage people from riding on it. For any of the people that I've spoken with, the width of the sidewalk is not a factor when choosing where to ride. The people who are deathly afraid of traffic are riding on the sidewalk now, even though it is 5' wide, cracked, broken and as of a couple weeks ago was under construction with a section removed and large parking cones in the middle of it. They are certainly not going to be discouraged from riding on a smooth, new, 6' wide sidewalk.
To this end, we need to ensure that *both* groups are accommodated for. We need to make the bike lanes as wide and as brightly marked as possible, and examine adding a physical barrier between the traffic and the bike lane at some point in the future. This link shows a great example as to how to properly build a bike lane that all age groups and user levels can enjoy: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/moved/buffered_bike_lane6.jpg As you can see, it is separated from traffic with a raised curb and the additional safety will encourage more people to use it, instead of the sidewalk. Until that happens, though, I would ask that you keep in mind the second group of riders noted above and realize that as the the roadway is designed, there are always going to be people that will continue to use this as a multi-use path. A 6' wide sidewalk will be *marginally* safer than it is now. An 8' sidewalk will allow for people to pass safely, will improve sight lines, and reduce conflicts. It will give drivers that are trying to cross it a better view of pedestrians and more time to react to the occasional recreational bike rider or family that is using it.
Some links on this subject:
NHTSA's position:
NYC's law for cyclists - legal to ride on the sidewalk as long as the child is less than 12 years old and the bike has smaller than 26" wheels:
One of the few studies actually done on bicycle accidents:
Lastly, one of the Council members spoke of voting against it due to the fact that all of these wide sidewalks and bike lanes ended abruptly at the Monona/Madison city line. I think that this is a reason *for* creating a wide and pedestrian-friendly atmosphere for the following reasons:
1) If we don't take the initiative and plan for the future, Madison won't either. Atwood will have to be redesigned at some point, and if there are bike lanes and wide sidewalks on the Monona side of Cottage Grove Rd, Madison will be encouraged to do the same. If we keep the same narrow, pedestrian-unfriendly sidewalks when in 2011, Madison can use the exact same argument (that the wide sidewalks would just "end" at Monona, so why bother doing them) in the future.
2) This would allow us to show that Monona is the pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly community, not Madison. Since I've moved here, all I've heard is how pedestrian-friendly Madison is, and how pedestrian-unfriendly Monona is. However, once Monona Drive is rebuilt, anyone entering Madison from the Monona Drive/Atwood corridor will see wide sidewalks, great bike lanes, and gorgeous landscaping on the Monona side, and narrow, rutted streets, narrow, broken sidewalks, and no bike lanes as soon as they cross into Madison. This would be a huge boost for our community, and definitely a draw for people who are looking to move to the area.
Travis Youman
Travis makes some very good points, and I'd like to add one please.
ReplyDeleteOne of the points of representitive government is to help find a compromise of the many different viewpoints of people. This should be a good thing, because it means more people get something they wanted. Lately it seems that this means everyone looses, because noone got exactly what they wanted. Possibly because it seems if you keep complaining enough, eventually someone will break down.
While a large percent of the residents in the area don't want bikers, there is a large percent of families and bikers who do. The designers and the City came up with a good compromise of 8 feet which was what noone wanted. Both sides should call it settled and move on.
Excellent point Anon. Other points that came up at Monday's meeting were:
ReplyDelete1) Residents would only get 1' more space, since the road would be re-centered (so the residents on both sides of MD would keep 1 more foot).
2) We'd have to change and resubmit the Environmental Study. Right now this is listed as a "multi-use path", and 8' is the bare minimum that we'd be able to get away with and still call it "multi-use".
3) Engineering drawings would have to be revised.
4) Both #2 and #3 will add additional costs to the project.
5) Both #2 and #3 will add additional time to the project, possibly (probably?) pushing the start date back into 2012.
Doug might be able to add a few more, but those were the ones that I picked up on.
WOW. What great comments. Everyone in Monona, and everyone who rides through Monona and reads this blog should be PESTERING the city council folk between now and next Monday about this issue. Everyone... now is the time to speak!
ReplyDeleteAnd no more delays. Decisions have been made lets move on!
Like Travis and Aldermen Veserat stated: going to 6 foot path really only gains one foot for Monona residents. When you factor in the cost alone to do the change I think this is a no brainer.
ReplyDeleteThe council made an informed decision and voted for 8 foot multipath last time. It should have stayed that way. It was a shame that this subject was put back on the agenda. I now hope that we keep the 8 foot and move forward.
I don't want to post a photo of someone beating a dead horse.
Can someone share what Kugle and/or Thomas said about justifying why they wanted to revisit this issue? Did they say they had new information that would warrant revisiting this? Several folks I've talked to are making assumptions that Kugle was pressured to change his vote by residents along this stretch of road. If that's not true, he'd do well to set the record straight.
ReplyDeleteMF, from today's HI:
ReplyDeletehttp://herald-independent.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=1276
"I have thought about it quite a bit since that (July 20) vote," said Kugle, listing right-of-way costs and the possible destruction of more trees as reasons to consider the issue again. He noted that the project will not line up well with the still-narrow sidewalk on Madison's Atwood Avenue, and pointed out that the city is putting bike lanes on both sides of the roadway in phase two.
Also, Alderman Veserat's thoughts:
http://herald-independent.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=128&ArticleID=1280
Ald. Kugle stated something along the lines of he "talked to people and changed his mind". He also stated that one person along that stretch gave him $50 for his campaign when he first ran for city council, and that he hasn't collected any funds since (and all fundraising has to be declared, or something to that effect).
ReplyDeleteAld. Thomas was not present, but she voted in favor of narrower sidewalks previously.
There was some confusion by Ald. Wiswell regarding whether the reduction would be down to 6' or 6.5'. In his defense, the ORIGINAL change requested at the July meeting was to reduce it to 6.5'. However, the current request is to change it to 6' (so even narrower than what was proposed in July).
It's almost beyond comprehension that the city council could possibly delay the the Monona Drive project over what amounts to two feet of concrete.
ReplyDeleteThe council really needs to see the bigger picture here -- numerous possible improvements to the retail sector of the Drive (north of Dean Avenue, in particular) have been delayed or put off because property owners rightly want to hold off until the reconstruction is complete. And a delay on this segement of the Drive means a likely delay in the final section, which goes by the high school -- one of the busiest sections of the Drive, and a section that is in horrible condition.
There may very well be arguments in favor of a 6-foot-wide sidewalk, just as there are arguments for an 8-foot or 10-foot wide section. But there is absolutely no basis for risking delay in this project -- to do so is irresponsible on the part of the council.
Could someone help me understand Mike Veserat's letter in today's Herald Independent? I'm not trying to criticize the writing, I just don't understand what his point is.
ReplyDeleteBottom of the page:
http://www.herald-independent.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=128&ArticleID=1280
Particularly:
1) "The current plan has only marginal transition plans for Atwood Ave. and absolutely no accommodations for bicyclists on Atwood Ave." There's no plan at all for Atwood Ave., right? This is just about Monona Drive, right?
2) "The real solution to safety through this corridor is not a wider sidewalk/multi-use path, (leads to conflicts between bicyclist and pedestrian, bicyclist and automobile) but to pressure the city of Madison to reconfigure Atwood to a three lane road with bike lanes." Do we have a say in what Madison does with Atwood? What does this have to do with the section of Monona Drive under discussion?
3) "The city of Madison pushed for bike lanes hard on the south end of Monona Dr." Really? Was their resistance to this from Monona?
4)"One of the reasons you will see the reduction in curb cuts on the south end of Monona Dr. is for the accommodations of the bike lanes." What's a curb cut? What are the other reasons for it's reduction? Is Mike saying this is good or bad?
5) "They are now pushing us for the same on the north end(without any reduction in ingress, egress points)." What are ingress/egress points? And why would Monona care if they're reduced?
I support the widener sidewalk and want to participate in this debate, but I'm trying to educate myself on this issue and I'm late to the game. Mike owns a bike store, so I'm optimistic that there is some kind of good point here but I just am not following this letter. If someone that knows more about this could help, I'd appreciate it.
I'm floored by Veserat's comments. Absolutely floored. This is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThere is NO research that shows:
1) That narrow sidewalks are a deterrent to bicycles
2) That narrow sidewalks will slow down cyclists
None. And if Veserat or any of the other Ald. have any research on this subject, I would be happy to look at ANY evidence they have.
After discussing this with a few of my colleagues (who will hopefully be at the meeting), this is looking more and more like Winnequah Part II. From what I understand (this was before my time), cyclists had ZERO input into the planning of this. There was no research done, no proposals put before cyclists, nothing beyond the City Council assuming that they knew how pedestrians and cyclists act under a given situation.
This is no different. There are now apparently 4 council members who are convinced that they know how cyclists will act. They've listened to person after person stand up and proclaim that they will continue riding on the sidewalk regardless of how wide it is. They've listened to my testimony last week stating that the faster, more hard-core commuters and riders will naturally gravitate towards the bike lanes in the street.
And yet, after all of this, after however many people stood up and voiced their opinion both in the July meeting and the most recent one, that they know what's best and how people will react to certain situations.
I plan on trying to get as many coworkers, neighbors, and fellow cyclists (can non-Monona residents show up to speak?) to come and show support for wider sidewalks. In my mind, this subject, above all others, shows whether the Council is going to be forward thinking and turn Monona into a pedestrian-friendly, bike-friendly community, or whether it's "business as usual".
"can non-Monona residents show up to speak?" Yes, anyone can speak. Could be a bit dicey depending on how they present their statement.
ReplyDelete"Could someone help me understand Mike Veserat's letter in today's Herald Independent? I'm not trying to criticize the writing, I just don't understand what his point is."
ReplyDeleteWell, he can speak and write for himself.
As far as Madison pressuring Monona to put bike lanes in the road on the south end, that is inaccurate.
Federal funds get distributed in urban areas by the local MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization). In the Madison area, the MPO highly favors projects that include the addition of bike lanes - or highly *disfavors* road projects that do not include bike lanes. It was made clear to the entire ad hoc committee that the plan needed to include bike plans in order to get federal funding.
There was not resistance to the bike lanes from Monona because it was never really a matter up for debate. Bike lanes were a given. (And I say, good for the Madison Area MPO.)
The reduction in curb cuts was not done for the bike lanes, it was pursued to improve safety. Fewer driveways = improved safety.
Madison is also not pushing for bike lanes on the north end; in fact, I hear that a number of the neighbors opposed the bike lanes at a Madison meeting. But see above re: funding.
And Madison has not said anything about the width of the Monona sidewalk.
As for the stuff about Atwood, I would just say that roads get rebuilt and improved in segments. Rome wasn't built in day and neither was the transportation system.
We don't have anything to say about what Madison does with Atwood. I don't know how putting bike lanes on Atwood would help with the situation on Monona Drive south of CG Road. Woulddn't that just bring even more bikers down there?
My take is this:
ReplyDelete1. Our ability to change people's behavior through passing laws is more limited (probably a lot more limited) than we might like to think.
2. None of the options is ideal.
3. No matter where the signs say the 'Lake Loop Path' goes, many bikers are going to use the sidewalk.
4. Families with younger children will use the sidewalk no matter what we do.
5. These families are making a rational choice because for them the sidewalk is safer.
6. Enforcing any type of ban on the sidewalk is never going to be a sustained high priority.
7. No solution is going to make both groups happy.
This is our one chance to improve the situation. I think we will regret it if we build 6'-wide sidewalk. It is also not the end of the world. (That's coming in 2012 just when we get thing built!).
At least Mike bothered to make his thoughts known beyond the walls of the council meeting. And so has Doug.
ReplyDeleteBut as is often the case, the rest of the council has remained mum outside the meeting about a very controversial situation. If we don't have cable or aren't willing to watch hours of council meetings, then we don't deserve to know what motivates the decisions of our council members? And while the Herald does a good job of reporting the meetings, these articles cannot provide any nuance or depth into the opinions of individual council members. In this day and age, council members have convenient, accessible methods to communicate directly with their constituents when a hot button issue arises. For instance, Doug spends a lot of time maintaining this blog but I rarely see his colleagues taking advantage of it to communicate. Likewise with our local paper. How often do you see council members writing a letter or column to express their viewpoint on an important issue? To my recollection, Alder Kugle wrote something awhile back on the chicken issue. Kudos for that and I hope he does it again on the reconsideration of the sidewalk thing and that Alder Thomas will consider doing so too.
As for the sidewalk, there are two confounding issues. One is the sidewalk itself, but the other is the decision to reconsider. It seems to say that if people keep pushing relentlessly, this council will revisit even in the face of no new information. This upsets people because they need to believe when an issue has been widely and openly aired and a decision was made with careful deliberation, they can move on. It is exhausting to keep fighting the same battle over and over. The result is often apathy about participating in local government. Even worse, when citizens discover that something was going on to keep an issue alive and they don't know what it was, they fill in the blanks with assumptions that are often misguided. Apathy and mistrust amongst people who bother to pay attention is not good for our community.
And yes, someone can surely bring up stuff from my school board years pointing asserting that I've made some of these mistakes too. Indeed I did - anyone who holds public office and says they never made mistakes is either a fool or delusional. But I did learn to appreciate that perception matters. In fact, it's everything.
Mary Possin