Does Midvale need in street bike lanes?
From the council meeting last night.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
About a dozen speakers came to speak about how they don’t want bike lanes on Midvale. The reasons the listed off were:
– No one rides bikes on Midvale anyways.
– Bikes can ride on the sidewalks.
– Those riding to the UW can use the bike path.
– Side streets are adequate.
– Too much traffic for bikes to ride on Midvale.
– Survey of 85 residences on Midvale from Hammersly to Mineral Point showed [The survey was quite unscientific as many of the people who were against the project were people who showed up to city meetings.]
— They talked to 44 or 52% of the residents
— 91% are owner occupied, not rentals [They apparently didn’t count renters as separate households, otherwise it would have been more like 50/50 renter to owner occupants with Sequoya Commons and other rentals]
— 60% seniors,
— 100% against lighting proposal [No longer being considered, no recommended by Board of Public Works.]
— 100% don’t want the bike lanes
— 56% use street parking
— 96% don’t want parking restrictions
— 100% don’t want the median reduced in width
— 100% don’t want the width of the traffic lanes reduced
– If the median is reduced by 4 feet there will be more impervious surface (21,000 sq ft)
– Less space to put the snow
– Safety issues in the pass through areas
– This is a truck route
– Turning traffic will have to cross the bike lanes
– Will only be used 6 months of the year
– Will cost the taxpayers to paint the lanes and remove the curb cut. [Some claimed $3M but staff said $100,000]
– Widening the street will increase the speeding
– Don’t want decrease in green space for aesthetic and environmental reasons
– Just because its a policy doesn’t mean you have to do it, its not absolute
– They called the path a bridge to no where [UW to the Beltline?]
– They claimed that bikes don’t want to use Midvale cuz it doesn’t take bikers anywhere [who presumably are going the same place as the heavy traffic they were complaining about]
– Some testified not many people parked there and the bikes could just ride in the parking area.
– Didn’t want 20% reduction of the median
– Cars speed, driving 40 but its posted at 30.
– Concerned about the trees being distressed from gypsy moths, wilt and emerald ash borer.
At one point the Mayor chastised the alders and told them to take extended side conversations off the floor of the council and to respect the public who was there. [Bruer just kept on talking . . . but I’m not sure if that is who the Mayor was chastising.] Despite the fact that this was a public hearing and people got 5 minutes instead of 3, almost every speaker went over their time and the Mayor didn’t seem to limit them.
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Clear asks Don Severson – would neighbors restrict parking? Severson says that people were not in favor of restricting parking.
Schmidt asks Severson – What if the median is reduced by 2 feet instead of 4 feet – Severson says that won’t help safety and he doesn’t like it.
Pham-Remmele asks Severson – Impressed with info you handed out, how did you do it? – Severson says 2 volunteers went door to door and talked to the people. Some info gathered from when people testified 3 weeks ago at Board of Public Works.Thuy asked about a specific person who called her – Severson says she isn’t in the survey. Thuy starts speaking to the pubic instead of asking questions as she should be doing – she thanks people for coming, says their input is important, tells them the Council is listening and asks them not to get frustrated. Then she asks if them if there is anything else he wants to say [The lamest question an alder can ask, unless they are just trying to extent the time for the speaker.]Severson adds everyone thinks the streets need to be repaired, should have been done correctly 10 years ago, pavement breaking up because no storm drains, no opposition to correcting the problem, but don’t like bike lane and narrowing.
Pham-Remmele asks “young gentleman” to come up – The Mayor says the buys can speak from the side of the room where the man was, Thuy asks that he come to the other side of the room so she can see him, so she will recognize him the next time she sees him. People are laughing. Finally, she asks him about when his child is 4 years old and goes to school, will he be mad at the city if the project goes forward [Apparently, his wife is expecting their first child.] He says he won’t be mad, but it is something to consider when kids go to schools. Says he will consider moving.Pham-Remmele asks how paying for these assessments will impact the speaker, what will you sacrifice? He says he will cut back on home improvements, bought a fixer upper.Pham-Remmele asks him not to move yet. Mayor clarifies he can move from podium as he walks away.
Pham-Remmele asks a guy named Crownower (sp?) to speak. She says he remembers him because he took her to task on an issues when she was first on the council. She asks him about why he mentioned Portland in his testimony, is it his dream city? He says no. She notes that he travelsalot and she asks why he lives here? He says his wife doesn’t want to move. Thuy asks him to be succinct about how he feels when he walks around his neighborhood, after she insults him by saying she is here to represent her constituents and “unfortunately I represent you”. He says that he lives in the area and the Mayor and engineering staff do not and they should listen to the people who live there and don’t realize what the neighbors are talking about. He says Madison does not need a holocaust and he is worried about car accidents. Points out there have been 4 deaths in 3 years on the street. Says not everyone who drives a car was at the top of their class at school, many people don’t follow the rules, eyesight problems, cell phones, not paying attention and can be distracted. To put bike lanes in middle of street is suicide. Good thing not many bikers useMidvale . Says bikers can ride on the sidewalk. Says one biker he talked to thought that was illegal. Talks about cops who teach bike safety who told kids to ride on the sidewalk. Says very few people walk any more and an accident between walker and bike will be rare and less danger. Says cars have quadrupled, bikes have decreased. Parking lots at high schools and they are full. Students are driving cars, not riding bikes.
Pham-Remmele asks another speaker about her comments about policy not being written in stone, and once again asks, “anything you want to add”? She reiterates what she already said, that after being in Human Resources she realizes guidelines are not absolutes, apply them to each situation on a case by case basis otherwise you have no credibility.Thuy asks if she is successful? She says yes, she has been successful in using this rule where she works.
Pham-Remmele asks people not to leave.
Bruer moved adoption, Clear second. Pham-Remmele interrupts and says she wants to ask questions. They have to explain to her that they need a motion to continue and that she can ask her questions next. [Seriously, after two years on the council, this is a pretty basic concept to understand, if she was a rookie, it might be confusing, but she’s been on the council for a while.]
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Pham-Remmele asks Rob Phillips (City Engineering) – What is she supposed to say to people who are frustrated and think the city doesn’t listen. She accuses Alder Palm of pressing forward despite what residents said. She asks do we need to respect policy like golden rule, is this carved in stone, is it a done deal, is there flexibility? He says its up to common council to decide. He explains this has been the city policy to add the bike lane and says if the street was built today, there is no question in his mind that it would have bike lanes on the street. It is what they recommend on arterial streets. He refers to a handout and says that the boulevard is 26 feet today and the proposal would reduce it to 22 feet. He says the standard is 20 feet on most of boulevard streets. Says it doesn’t compromise the median in terms of the function – vehicle can be staged with 22 foot median.
Pham-Remmele makes another comment, instead of question, that she is glad to hear that the policy can be considered and it is not carved in stone. Then she starts wondering aloud “What exactly are we voting now, are we still doing this? She says “I am very new to this”. She says there are many road projects in her district She talks about the going from gold to platinum standards. Says people came and “bared their souls”. Says her husband told her that Mayor Dave will be asking for a 20% reduction in the budget for next year. Mayor Dave interrupts at this point, reminding her that we are still on questions of staff.
Pham-Remmele starts asking another question of Rob Phillips about what message the city is sending to lay people. Mayor interrupts again, tells the alder she is asking a rhetorical question. Says she is asking a policy question that is for the council to decide and its not appropriate to ask staff. She presses on, says she wants to know what she is supposed to ask people. Mayor moves on to next alder.
Palm asks “Rob, Mr. Phillips, City Engineer” – Please explain the project and the assessment policy and how it gets changed with project and what happened with street lights? Rob Phillips explains there is a drainage problem in median, that they need to replace median curb and storm sewer. He says that this project opened up opportunity and that is how they got to adding a bike lane and lighting. He explains assessments are to adjoining property and are only for the curb on the outside of the street, not the median area. He explains they are two independent issues – street lighting was removed. Palm asks how much was of the assessment was for lighting and how much was the rest, he doesn’t know exact numbers but says it is a “substantial reduction”. He asks if the installation of lighting a policy or adhoc. He says it is not as common to make a change of that nature, but on a new project they would install the lighting.
Maniaci asks Phillips to compare to Gorham? She asks if they are just doing this because they want to or need to? Dan McCormick answers the questions. Says Gorham is parking and bike lane of 12 feet which is kind of narrow plus two traffic lanes and some sections are more narrow. He says thatMidvale is fairly typical of other roads in the area. Also points out similar bike paths like on E Wash and Univeristy Ave. He explains they are trying to get more space to make the street more multi-modal and for dedicated bike space. This was an opportunity and it was staff recommendation.
Maniaci – Does space as it exists preclude you from adding a bike lane. Or is it based on just a wider lane? [That question doesn’t make any sense, because they are narrowing the driving lanes, so I’m confused.] McCormick says under today’s conditions can’t do a marked bike lane. Without the widening of the street, they wouldn’t mark bike lanes and leave it the way it is.
Schmidt – Asks McCormick to elaborate on use of bikes on sidewalks. McCormick says sidewalks are not recommended. They can be used in res areas, but prohibited in commercial areas like Sequoya because of the conflict betweenpeds and bikes. Sidewalks are not a recommended bike facility unless used as an alternative when not comfortable or inadequate facilities on a roadway.
Schmidt – Asks Phillips how much adding the bike lanes will cost, he says $100,000 to add the bike lanes. Schmidt asks if it is possible to have 4 foot bike lane. He says the minimum for parking and a bike lane is 12 ft. He says they can do it, but it makes it a little more difficult in the winter. He says it is not as recommended because limited parking and active use of the parking, but it would beok. He suggested that in certain areas, Midvale School and Sequoya, maybe keep it at the 13 feet along the one side in those higher used area. Suggests that as a compromise.
Clear asked if narrowing motor vehicle lanes slightly will that slow down the traffic? Staff says it can, but its marginal and slows the traffic by about 2 -3 miles per hour. However, it can make some drivers more uncomfortable. Monroe is 9 feet, so speed is more relative to the street.
Clear – Asks where in the city there are equivalent boulevard 4 lane st with bike lanes – Schumacher suggests Northport. Staff says it was a 1950s era street where they weren’t building bike lanes, so trying to retrofit them, but still want to keep the boulevard and keep it landscaped. E Wash is probably more likeMidvale.
Someone, perhaps Clear, asked how wide is the median on E Wash. Staff says 18 – 20 feet – actually narrower.
Cnare asked McCormick about the neighborhood feel of the street and the fact that there are not many bikes and what does it do to the road use and feel if add bike lanes? McCormick says some space taken from median but that staff wants to do landscaping plan and doesn’t want to take out trees, in fact they would like to plant more. He says that you want bikes on the street. He notes this will move traffic 5 feet further away from the houses. This is a positive for the street, more multi-modal and more respectful of other users on the street.
Palm – makes a comment about how we don’t know how to count peds and bikes which I didn’t quite understand, but he asks if there is a standard for safety and how safety is impacted by the width of the bike lane. Staff says there is no standard, no hard numbers, but parking lane is 8 feet and there are two 12 foot parking lanes. Bikes use the street now, using the 8 feet, and they want to expand that area that bikes use and it should only increase the safety for the bikes. Also, parked cars will have more space to try to get in and out of the car if going to the library or get ice cream. He thinks it will also make users of the businesses more comfortable and more likely to use the businesses.
Palm asks about the intersections and pass throughs. Staff says that the cross over point is getting narrow, but space for them to angle their cars to cross. He says 22 feet is wide enough for a car to cross in two stages. It will be a new experience for drivers. He says he could go with compromise but still give them a 1 or 2 foot difference, it doesn’t put them over the edge like an 18 foot median might.
Rummel asks McCormick about resticting parking during rush hour – did BPW or neighborhood meeting address this issue? Phillips says didn’t propose it, nor does he recommend it. He thinks it would require a new level of enforcement. Rummel notes that E Wash added bike lanes and more people bike it. And its a more crazy street to bike on . . .
DISCUSSION
Schmidt makes an amendment to change the bike lane to 4 feet instead of 5 feet, with a few exceptions where there is more parking and use of the street. He says he is making the amendment to balance the competing desires of the neighborhood. He understands the wide median, it is a feature, but at the same time want to encourage multi-modal transportation. Talks about striping the traffic lane on another road and how it helped slow people down. He thinks its good to narrow the drive lanes and put in the bike lanes.
The amendment is not considered friendly.
Solomon – thanks people who came out. Supports amendment, thinks comments and concerns were good. Explains that the area under discussion is in district 10, 11 and 20. No residents in his district were concerned about it, but his folks wanted to make sure the bike lane was included. There is a mix of opinions. He is concerned about the bikers on the sidewalk – especially for children who don’t see cars coming out of driveways. Agrees with traffic engineering that more space and striping will increase safety. Likes compromise, cuz addresses some conserns about the median. Even 22 feet would have been fine, its a huge median. If built today we’d be jumping for joy to keep that much green space and we’d all be supporting a bike lane. Thanks people who testified again, thanks Alder Schmidt and wants people to support the amendment.
Schumacher – asks if staff could weigh in – Rob says support the amendment. McCormick also supports.
Compton wants a 5 foot bike lane. Understands people don’t want to lose median, but she doesn’t want to lose a biker. What if child gets hurt when run into a parked car – not concerned about good bikers, wants safety of all users to be considered. Says she can’t support going from 5 to 4 when we have an opportunity to keep the 5 foot lane and still have a nice terrace. She says this is a neighborhood street and it will take people to Hilldale and Library and bookstore and we want all levels of bikers to use the bike lane and she would rather they did not use the sidewalk.
Clear supports trying to satisfy the people who came, but people aren’t happy with compromise (safety) and don’t want it, so he won’t support it cuz of what Compton just said.
Schmidt says that with the exceptions (schools and Midvale Commons) the cars will not usually be parked on the street and in reality, the bikes will have even more space. He said he knows his “compromise” this doesn’t satisfy, but he can’t see making a 13 ft strip that is not used 90% of the time.
Palm asks staff what happens if more development? Staff says compromise recognizes areas with more parking, but it won’t work if there are more intensive uses. However, he is not aware of areas for intensive redevelopment.
Solomon says this is not a compromise for the sake of compromise. This allows for green space and wider median where they can, wider bike lanes where needed.
Compton to staff asks about parking where 4 foot bike lanes are. McCormick says they wouldn’t want that to restrict the parking. He says they would still mark a bike lane the full parking lane but just 4 feet and would still meet the standards. He says single family residential is longer term parking with with infrequent turn over so not as much risk of car doors conflicting with bikes passing by. Given balancing the concerns, it seems like a reasonable compromise, but in higher use areas they do need the extra space.
Compton – We have more bikers than before, will have more bikes in the future, but will also have more cars, and don’t want to come back and try to make the median wider later. Reminds them that this could be “one child”.
Schmidt – Submits that this road is a major artery only during rush hour and drops quite a bit during the rest of the day. He thinks the major redevelopment already happened, this is a single family residential area and only development will happen if they close a school or church. Points out neighborhood plans plan it as single family. Says it is important to think about one child. Right now we have 2 lane roads poorly marked, thinks they need to mark traffic lanes and keep them narrow.
Pham-Remmele – Says most children will use the sidewalks, doesn’t think children will be in danger. Rare problems with cars parking. Lost – track – of – her – point – she says its about safety and if look at speeding and we are honest with ourselves . . . if that is what we want to do (bike path) then that is what we should do, just don’t say its for the residents. Tells council members to justify it how you want but you can’t have it both ways. [It was a little confusing.]
ROLL CALL ON SCHMIDT AMENDMENT
Aye: Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clear, Cnare, Maniaci, Rummel, Sanborn, Schmidt, Schumacher
No: Clausius, Compton, Eagan, King, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Skidmore.
Abstain/Out of Room: Kerr
Passes 11 – 8
MAIN MOTION DISCUSSION
Palm – describes Board of Public Works meeting as a chaotic crowded meeting with discussion about street lights. BPW was listening to people who came, but knew of longstanding consistent policy on the bike paths and followed it, unlike the, street lights which was not the same kind of policy. So, they eliminate lighting and keep the bike path to cut the costs for the neighbors. Supports the bike lane, should do it, consistent with policy otherwise in 20 years would look back and wonder why we didn’t do it. He says the city is adding bike paths at a high rate and this is a tremendous route. To say we don’t need bike routes to get to libraries and schools or beltline is “crazy”. Reminds people the bike lane won’t impact assessments that residents are charged and heard that smaller medians would have limited effect on travel of cars. We are trying to encourage bikes to use our streets and minimize use of cars.
ROLL CALL: 18 Ayes, Pham-Remmele NO and Bidar-Sielaff meant to pass, said abstain, but corrected her vote to aye.
