Now that I've had a chance to put the pieces together, this is my own
biased write up. Feel free to correct me.
Madison Yards is the name of the project to redevelop the lot where
the soon-to-be-if-not-already-vacant Hill Farms DOT building currently
sits. The State is selling off (or has sold off ) this property to a
private developer.
I'm omitting my off-topic rant about the various ways the Walker
administration is hurting our City and our State.
The legistar link for the project is here:
https://madison.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3308392&GUID=DA3192BF-D95A-400E-8F71-24AF6A1C1E06
The Plan Commission meeting of 4/23 added 2 conditions to the plan, including:
"That the applicant shall work with Traffic Engineering staff to
ensure that adequate right -of-way is
dedicated along Segoe Road to incorporate bicycle lanes."
At the 5/1 Common Council meeting where the project was discussed,
Ald. Martin proposed an amendment (with Ald. Clear's support) that
would remove this condition. You can read her arguments in the article
that And Bach referenced:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/madison-city-council-denies-motion-to-reconsider-confederate-monument-decision/article_ae87ae49-4c8f-5d28-8d78-5be49dbbd300.html
I do not agree with her arguments. Fortunately, this amendment did not
pass. (this is not mentioned in the article).
The project was approved. The minutes of the meeting are not posted yet.
Andy also previously posted Ald. Clear's comments from Facebook:
"Whether bike lanes on this particular segment of Segoe are a good
idea is a separate question from the Madison Yards project, and
deserves its own review. It never came up in the year-plus review of
the project. Segoe is not being altered by the project. One member of
the Plan Commission added this condition at (literally) the last
minute, before anyone had a chance to think it through. "
To which I reply:
* No, bike lanes are not a separate question from the project. As
noted, the condition was added at the Plan commission meeting.
Any development of this size implicitly impacts traffic in the area.
Any development of this size that does not explicitly address
transportation in the area is defective and should be rejected.
In fact, the Legistar page includes a TDM (Transportation Demand
Managment Study) that discusses transportation modes in the project
area. It clearly indicates "proposed bike lanes" on Segoe.
* If the subject of bikes lanes were never addressed during the
'year-plus' review, who's fault is that?
I was at one public meeting a year ago. Many neighborhood residents
were concerned about traffic.
The developers assured us they were working with the city on traffic
issues. Car traffic, of course.
But when one of my neighbors asked about bus and bike traffic issues,
the developers dismissed the issue as being out of scope.
I haven't heard boo about the project until just now.
* The plan commission meeting was 8 days before the Common Council
meeting, not 'literally at the last minute'.
Also, the Common Council meeting included a memo from Traffic
Engineering (TE), indicating that bike lanes
could be added w/o changing the the right-of-way. Also that they had
worked with the applicant on this.
If this simple condition was enough to scare away a developer, then
they can kiss off as far as I'm concerned.
-darin
--
--
darin burleigh
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
