[ShaneDog]

Emily Mills wonders why bike lanes are so controversial. After reading her post, I'm sort of scratching my head too. What made adding bike lanes the most contoversial and divisive part of that project?

Bicycle advocates have long envisioned turning four-lane Sherman Avenue into a two-lane road with dedicated bike lanes. One option discussed is a two-lane road with turn lanes, know in planning parlance as a "TWTL."

Several commission members proposed including that language in the plan to help slow traffic on the busy thoroughfare and make it safer for non-motorists.

But Northside Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway urged the commission not to mention "TWTL" in the final document. She said it was the most divisive issue in the entire area and would jeopardize what otherwise was a good plan.


And apparently she was right. But I honestly don't understand why, of everything else that could possibly be contentious when discussing a major redevelopment plan for a neighborhood, bike lanes were what drew the most ire.

[HOMOsapien]

You will need to point out who finds them controversial and where/when they stated said controversy. That's what journalists do, while kids aggregate others cheap and easy opinions. Everyone has one. So what?

I find a lot of Madison area internet political buzz designed to do anything other than create buzz and drive/direct traffic to the fabricated buzz, that is typically only found on the internet. So what. People are going to public meetings and discussing issues and a few bored liberals are raising hairs about what they see/hear. Get a life.

Considering you are a Dane101 errand boy, your post is suspect. When are you clowns going to produce worth while original content rather than making shit up and poach on Isthmus's territory?

No, I didn't follow your link. I know I will be disappointed per above. Real life originality, that's what people want, not a copy.

[fisticuffs]

HOMOsapien Wrote:

Blah Blah Blah I have nothing to add but like to read my own rants so here's 200 words on why you suck. Ahhh that feels better.

[ShaneDog]

We get it. You don't like Dane101. That's ok, the post wasn't about Dane101, it was about why bike lanes were dropped from a proposal for redeveloping a neighborhood. I just read Emily's post and was curious to find out if anyone else knew why that specific piece was deemed controversial. Lots of people who attend those meetings hang out on this forum, so, you know, I figured this would be a good place to discuss it.

[Madsci]

It does seem to be the old cars vs bikes dilemma.

I used to bike on the sidewalk to get to Warner Park but that has been outlawed. I have not found a safe and direct route to get to the north-side events. How do bicyclists do it now?

[DCB]

It does seem to be the old cars vs bikes dilemma.

I used to bike on the sidewalk to get to Warner Park but that has been outlawed. I have not found a safe and direct route to get to the north-side events. How do bicyclists do it now?

I think we should treat all vehicles the same. Thats why, when I'm biking, I act just a car does. I threaten violence against all who dare fuck with me.

My bumper sticker says "If you can read this you're in the sites of my rear-mounted rocket launcher".

[gargantua]

I suppose the fact that the proposal includes slowing automobile traffic. Automobile traffic does not like to be slowed, hence, controversy. FWIW, I think bike lanes are needed there, and my observation was to point out something that really should be obvious. Most motorists could give a rat's ass about bicycle lanes and would oppose anything that slows their commute.

Nothing new about that, nor unique to Madison.

[acereraser]

Something else that might be a part of the controversy is the plan for a dedicated bike path to serve the Northside, which was drawn up years ago. The Isthmus reported a few weeks ago that the plan has been greatly reduced, but that means people are still discussing it, which might also mean they don't TWTL to interfere with efforts to finally realize some version of a dedicated path.

[TAsunder]

Between one lane mostly lost for cars and the intention to slow traffic down in general, wouldn't this cause greatly increased car traffic on Sherman at any point in time?

[rabble]

Between one lane mostly lost for cars and the intention to slow traffic down in general, wouldn't this cause greatly increased car traffic on Sherman at any point in time?

My understanding is that they built Pennsylvania and Packers Aves just to take traffic overflow from Sherman. Seems like most of that traffic would be better shunted to the wider streets with fewer traffic lights.

[acereraser]

Between one lane mostly lost for cars and the intention to slow traffic down in general, wouldn't this cause greatly increased car traffic on Sherman at any point in time?

My understanding is that they built Pennsylvania and Packers Aves just to take traffic overflow from Sherman. Seems like most of that traffic would be better shunted to the wider streets with fewer traffic lights.

I think you mean we should close down Packers Ave. and make a park. The resulting increase in commuter traffic on Sherman will benefit local businesses.

Sorry.

[lukpac]

Something else that might be a part of the controversy is the plan for a dedicated bike path to serve the Northside, which was drawn up years ago. The Isthmus reported a few weeks ago that the plan has been greatly reduced, but that means people are still discussing it, which might also mean they don't TWTL to interfere with efforts to finally realize some version of a dedicated path.

I'm pretty sure most of the anti-TWTL people are *not* bikers, but rather people that want 4 driving lanes.

[ilikebeans]

I think you mean we should close down Packers Ave. and make a park.

It could be called... Lambeau Field. HAHAHAHAHA.

[david cohen]

Another part of the equation is that folks who live on the northside put up with the total reconstruction of Sherman Ave last year, and it was a major pain in the ass. So, the pain of a limited roadway to commute downtown and back is very fresh in our minds. Permanently limiting the roadway is a sore spot for many. Plenty of folks bike down Sherman. Most use the right lane and motorists avoid them. Some ride 2 and three abreast, making avoidance a bit trickier. Some do this with a child trailer attached to the bike on the outside of the pair. My neighbors are aghast at crap like that, not because we dislike bikes (most of us bike around our neighborhoods), but because we're scared to death we might hit someone on a bike. Couple that with the gross neglect of traffic laws by many (but not all) bicyclists, and you have an environment where motorists prefer to keep Sherman Ave. 4 lanes. Plus the 2 lanes plus turn lane thingy was tried a few yrs ago- it resulted in more accidents, less traffic flow, and even more danger to bicyclists due to the restricted roadway. I think the alders made the right call, and these two alders certainly know their constituents opinions.

[snoqueen]

Turn Sherman Avenue into a park? No way. I think it should be a three mile long flea market.