Updating the Shorewood Ped/Bike Master Plan

 April, 4, 2024

Improvements that We Would Like to See Made in the Next Ten Years

As the Village goes through the process of reviewing and updating its 2015 Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, it is seeking suggestions from the public. Any changes that citizens would like to see made to our streets any time in the next ten years—so as to make them better and safer for all users—should be suggested now.  Everyone wants better and safer streets, but to get to that goal, specific changes have to be suggested, and later funded and made. With this in mind, here is a preliminary list of specific suggestions that users may want to make (and fight for) as part of the process the Village will be following over the next few months as it updates the 2015 Plan. This approximately thirty-item list will strike some (or maybe most) as too long, or too detailed, but if we want things to change, we have to make specific suggestions, and advocate for their inclusion in the updated Master Plan.   

Here is GSB’s current list:    

1. CSP:  The Village should adopt a Complete Streets Policy in 2024.
2. Twenty is Plenty: The Village should become a “20 is Plenty” Community, whereby the default speed limit on residential streets is 20 mph (arterial or collector streets would or could still have a higher “as posted” designated speed limit). This would involve Shorewood joining the many communities in the U.S. and around the world that have implemented a “20 is Plenty” program (including Minneapolis, St. Paul, and several areas in Madison).
3. A Connected Network of “Bike Routes”: Too many Shorewood residents are scared to allow their kids to bike on Shorewood streets, or themselves to bike on many of those streets. To help address this problem, the Village should plan now a connected network of high-quality “bike routes.” That term here means streets configured to be safe and less stressful for bike riders, no matter what their ages. The Village should develop now a “bike routes map” for Shorewood, designating which streets in Shorewood are going to be developed over time to be part of the connected network. As streets in that network are re-designed over time, they should be designed to have high-quality spaces for bikes, and world-class design. Then, as streets on the new map are re-constructed over time in Shorewood, those streets should be upgraded, and the network built out and completed. Not all streets in the network will ultimately have buffered or protected bike lanes,  (the “world-class” standard for safe, comfortable, efficient and pleasant bike riding), but those should be the first choice as new street designs are prepared.  
4. Neighborhood Greenways: The Village should designate, redesign and eventually reconstruct Murray, Kensington and Edgewood as “neighborhood greenways” (i.e., making improvements to the intersection and street designs, to encourage traffic calming, to add more/better pedestrian curb extensions and crosswalks, to add more green landscaping at intersections, and to make those streets more bike friendly). Note, if the Village designates and re-designs Murray as a neighborhood greenway, the Village should not use that as an excuse to fail to create high-quality bike lanes on Oakland, or otherwise forgo pedestrian-and-bike friendly improvements on Oakland. As to Edgewood, average vehicles speeds on Edgewood would be reduced by the placement of mini-traffic circles where Edgewood intersects with Summit, Prospect and Murray; adding such would help to break up the “long, clear straightaway” street view that drivers currently perceive when driving on Edgewood. The Village, the City and UWM should work together, so as to create an “Edgewood Avenue Corridor,” along which bike riders can safely travel from Lake Drive to the Oak Leaf Trail (the “OLT”). Almost all on-street parking on the Shorewood side of Edgewood, consists of UWM students parking for free on Shorewood streets. When Edgewood is ultimately redesigned and reconstructed, the Village of Shorewood should work with UWM and the City to eliminate on-street parking on one or both sides of Edgewood, so that protected bike lanes can be built on one or both sides all along the “Edgewood Avenue” Corridor (from Lake Drive, to the OLT). 
5. Capitol Drive: The western half of Capitol Drive has been allowed to become a “stroad.”  When that stretch of street is redesigned and reconstructed, the Village (working with the State) should adopt a street design that makes Capitol drive less of a “stroad,” and more of a street.  As part of that: (a) Eliminate the dedicated right turn lane at the southwest corner of Capitol and Oakland (as such “slip lanes” prioritize fast vehicle movement, over pedestrian safety); (b) Implement a “road diet” program on the western half of Capitol Drive, so as to generally reduce the vehicle travel lanes from two lanes to one lane each direction; (c) Add pedestrian bump outs at the intersection of Capitol and Morris, especially at the southwest. corner of that intersection (to further deter illegal right turns on red at that intersection, and to reduce the volume of “cut thru” vehicle traffic on Morris and Menlo); (d) Add bike lanes on or next to Capitol Drive (as part of such, consider adding a bi-directional, protected bike lane on the south side of the street; or consider redesigning the “sidewalk area” on the south side of Capitol so there would be a sidewalk, and a separate multiuse path); (e) Work to “activate-and-humanize the streetscape” on Capitol, so as to promote traffic calming, more pedestrian use, and more pedestrian-focused businesses. Consider adding on-street parklets along Capitol, and on-sidewalk and on-street dining, to facilitate the above; and (f) In conjunction with Culver’s, develop a plan to slow-down vehicles seeking to exit Culver’s driveway, and to otherwise make it more likely that drivers will watch for, see, and yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk, and bike riders on the street.
6. Oakland Avenue: When the southern half of Oakland Avenue is redesigned and reconstructed, the Village should adopt a street design that makes Oakland Avenue less of a stroad, and more of a street.  Many other communities have done wonderfulthings for their communities, by redesigning stroads to streets. (Unlike Capitol Drive, which is part of the State Highway system, Oakland Avenue is not, so the Village would not need State approval to make improvements to Oakland, except at the intersection of Capitol & Oakland.) 
7. Reduce the Number of Stop Signs: The Village should eliminate one or more four-way stop sign intersections in Shorewood, by redesigning and reconstructing those intersections with attractive, landscapedmini-roundabouts in the center of those intersections instead.
8. Greater Parking Setbacks: At intersections where such is a problem (e.g., at the intersection of Menlo & Frederick), the Village should increase parking setbacks from the intersection, so as to enable all street users to better see approaching vehicles or crossing pedestrians, thus enhancing  driver, pedestrian and rider safety at such intersections. Alternatively, at Menlo & Frederick, at the southwest and southeast corners, curb extensions should be constructed, so as to enhance driver, rider and pedestrian safety (so that all users can see each other better, so that pedestrians are in the path of vehicles for a shorter distance, and so that traffic turning onto Frederick Avenue is slightly slowed). 
9. Prohibit New Drive-Thrus: The Village should continue its ban on permitting new drive-thru businesses in Shorewood (as such are not conducive to the ped/bike culture the Village has, and seeks to enhance). (This proposal would not eliminate any existing drive-through windows/lanes, such as currently exist at Culver’s, the Corner Bakery, or Walgreens.) 
10. Roundabouts: The Village should consider replacing one or more of the signalized intersections on Oakland or Capitol with a well-designed(ped/bike friendly) lower-speed roundabout (with the goal at those intersections of reducing the number and severity of vehicle crashes, improving ped and bike-rider safety, bringing down average vehicle speeds on Capitol and Oakland, improving the steadiness of traffic flow, bringing down vehicle corridor travel times, decreasing engine idling, increasing driver alertness, and decreasing green-house-gas emissions). 
11. Re-Imagine Shorewood’s Main Intersection: Redesign and redevelop the intersection of Capitol and Oakland, so that intersection and area becomes less car-centric in its design, and becomes much more the “heart” of Shorewood, or a “gate-way” attribute of Shorewood (i.e., Shorewood’s Columbus Circle or Champs-Élysées). Work with the Shorewood Public Art Committee and potential local donors to create a beautiful green space within the roundabout that would help to calm traffic, brand Shorewood, and beautify it.
12. Protected Intersections: Where it is decided not to replace signalized intersections with roundabouts, the Village should create “protectedintersections” (sometimes called “Dutch-style” intersections). 
13. Re-Imagine the River Park Area: The Village should work to redesign and reconstruct the streets, intersections, and paths in and adjacent to River Park, and the commercial district around the intersection of Edgewood & Oakland.  As part of that: (a) The street and walkway design there should be re-designed, so that it is much less car-centric than it currently is; specifically, the safety and desires of non-vehicle traffic should be prioritized. Vehicle traffic (on the one hand) and pedestrians and non-car traffic (bike, scooter and skateboard riders) should be better separated (in the park itself, in the parking lots, and in the approaches to the park); (b) Ensure that bike riders (and other-human-powered-wheeled-modes of transportation) have a safe and direct way to get from the intersection of Oakland and Edgewood, to and through the Park, and the OLT (as part of that, consider creating a protected multiuse trail from the Oakland & Edgewood intersection, to the OLT, one which would run mostly along the southern edge of the park (c) Consider reducing the currently “overbuilt and often-unused” surface parking lots in River Park, so that there is more green space in the park, or so that pickleball courts could be added at the northwest corner of the intersection; (d) Add a playground structure in the park, so families with younger kids have a destination to go to in the park (other than the baseball and soccer fields); locate that playground area either in the southwest corner of the park, or in a “new green space” to be created southeast of Spector Field (that is, replace some of the “excess” surface parking lot located southeast of Spector Field, with a younger-child-play-and-playground space, with an innovative playground structure); (e) Encourage and incentivize neighborhood businesses in the River Park commercial area to create more on-sidewalk dining, and on-street dining areas, so as to activate and humanize the streetscape; (f) Long term, re-develop the commercial space located at 3510 N. Oakland (currently occupied by a Sherwin Williams Paint store), to become a bar, restaurant or coffee shop, with (in warmer months) outdoor on-street or on-sidewalk dining or tables, and/or some outdoor seating (as leased to the new business by the Village) in Humble Park (the very small, and currently rather-underutilized public park, which is located just to the south of the above address).
14. Brand-Enhancing Bike Racks: The Village should allow and install “artistic” bike racks in Shorewood, so that riding is encouraged, and the message is better conveyed that Shorewood is cool, fun, stylish, and bike-friendly.
15. A “Gold” Bicycle Friendly Community: The Village should formally adopt a goal that it will take those steps necessary so that the Village moves from being designated as a “Silver Level” Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists (“LAB”), to a “Gold Level” BFC.  Related to that, the Village should encourage one or more Shorewood businesses to apply to become designated as a LAB Bicycle Friendly Business.
16. More Students Walking and Biking to School: The Village should promote more active transportation by students and their families; as part of that: (a) Create a real-and-robust campaign to encourage more families to walk or bike to school, so as to actively work to create a new generation of families and citizens who naturally want to and choose to use active means of transportation in their daily lives, throughout their lives; (b) Make biking a part of the Shorewood Middle School and High School physical education curriculum; and (c) The Village should work to create a practice facility for the Shorewood Mountain Bike Team, either in Shorewood, or nearby.  
17. Use NACTO Guidelines: The Village should use the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide as a template for redeveloping Shorewood streets over time, as they are redesigned and reconstructed.
18. Residential Shared Streets: As to “Residential Shared Streets” (a/k/a “Yield Streets” or “Yard Streets”), the Village should: (a) Choose one of Shorewood’s “stub” streets (i.e., a quiet residential street that is a dead-end street, or which is only one block in length) and do a shared street demonstration project on that street in the summer of 2025, or 2026; and (b) After the demonstration project is completed, develop a Village-wide policy, which would enable the residents on other stub streets to petition the Village to have their street designated by the Village, and configured, as a shared street (on a temporary, seasonal or longer-term basis).
19. More Pedestrian Street Life: To enhance traffic calming and to activate-and-humanize our streets, the Village should create on-street parklets, and permit/encourage seasonal outdoor dining (i.e., more on-sidewalk and on-street dining areas).
20. LPIs: The Village should ensure that our signalized intersections we have appropriate "leading pedestrian intervals”  (“LPIs”), so as to enhance safety for students, the elderly and other pedestrians.
21. Bike Boxes and Bike Signals: At intersections that have a high volume of bike riders (Oakland & Menlo, Capitol & Oakland, Oakland & Shorewood, Oakland & Edgewood, and Lake & Capitol), the Village should: (a) Create “Bike Boxes,”  so as to increase rider safety and visibility; and (b) Install “bike signals” (that would indicate that bikes may proceed to cross an intersection at the same time as pedestrians can), or support the State of Wisconsin amending the Wisconsin Traffic Code, so that Wisconsin allows signs at intersections indicating “Bikes Use Pedestrian Signals”. 
22. Re-Vitalize Village “Dead Zones”: There are several stretches of streetscape along Oakland and Capitol that have been allowed to become “pedestrian dead zones.” A few examples of such areas would be the vacant lot at the northeast corner of the intersection of Oakland & Marion, the “public market stall” space located between the Metro Market parking lot and Oakland Avenue, the northwest corner of the intersection of Oakland & Kenmore, and the northwest corner of the intersection of Oakland & Edgewood (for more examples, see the complete list that the Village’s Other Public Spaces Sub-Committee has developed). The Village should develop a plan to re-vitalize those areas, so there is a reason for pedestrians to use those spaces, and those spaces become an asset to the Village. 
23. Greener Deliveries: Encourage or incentivize delivery services (e.g., UPS, FedEx, Prime, etc.) to use greener vehicles (either electric vehicles, or e-cargo-delivery bikes). 
24. Metro Market 2.0: Encourage or incentivize Metro Market to activate-and-humanize the streetscape better around the store, including by re-opening the “mid-block” entrance/exit (which has been closed since the pandemic started), and creating an entrance/exit at the intersection of Oakland & Kenmore, and as part of that, create an “outdoor café area” or “outdoor beer garden” at that corner during summer months.
25. Menlo & Morris: Although the Village has made significant progress as to calming traffic on Menlo and Morris, and discouraging “cut-through traffic” between Capitol and Oakland, more could be done. The Village should consider the installation in that area of such “horizontal” traffic-calming measures as chicanes, and center islands (as opposed to installing “vertical” traffic-calming measures, a/k/a speed bumps, speed humps, speed tables, and/or speed pillows). 
26. DPW Yard Easement: When the Village retires the DPW yard, it should retain an “alley” or “breezeway” easement through that property, so as to better enable students, pedestrians, families and bike riders to safely and comfortably travel between Morris Boulevard and the OLT.
27. “Gateway” Art on the OLT: The Village (in conjunction with Milwaukee County, the City of Milwaukee, the Shorewood Public Arts Committee, Whitefish Bay, and private donors), should create “gateway” art structures or new landscaping installations alongside or over the OLT, at the Shorewood/Milwaukee border and the Shorewood/WFB border. 
28. e-Scooters: Although controversial, the Village should study, and then consider allowing, businesses offering seasonal short-term app-enabled e-scooters to operate in Shorewood, (e.g., the same businesses that are allowed to operate in Milwaukee, such as Lime, Veo and Spin). Those should be allowed generally the same terms as they are permitted in Milwaukee, provided those services (like they do in Milwaukee) generate revenue for Village coffers. Such would provide Shorewood residents, UWM students and others a low-cost, green, non-car way of getting around in Shorewood, and to and from Shorewood bars, restaurants and shops. Although e-scooters are not without their risks and dangers, neither is the use of other, more familiar ways of getting around in Shorewood. As part of that project, update Chapter 207 of the Village Code, to fix some of the outdated provisions therein relating to micromobility transport methods.
29. Detering & Punishing Reckless Driving: As reckless driving poses a threat to all street users, develop a concrete plan to deter and punish reckless driving in Shorewood (for specific suggestions as to what can be done, see this GSB blog article: Discouraging Reckless Driving inShorewood). 
30. Enhance Ped/Bike Safety and Comfort on Estabrook Parkway in the Summer Months: The Village (in conjunction with the County), during summer months should designate the Parkway as a “non-thru traffic street” (similar to what the University of Wisconsin did many years ago with the street that goes through the UW Arboretum). This could be done at a very low cost each summer, by just posting at the park entrances temporary “no thru traffic” signs, and closing one of the already existing gates/barriers (most likely the one near the beer garden). This would still enable folks who want to take a “sightseeing drive” in the park to do so, but would not enable drivers (at least during summer months) to use the Parkway as a shortcut to get from Capitol to Hampton (or vice versa). Reducing the volume-of-traffic and lowering average-vehicle-speeds on the Parkway during the summer months would make the Parkway safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and bike riders of all ages during those months.
31. Adopt an “All Streets Policy”: Shorewood should adopt an “All Streets Policy,” that is, one whereby: (a) There are no longer any streets in Shorewood, about which parents say “I would never allow my teenage child to bike alone on that street, it’s just too dangerous”; and (b) There are no longer any streets in Shorewood where parents feel it is just too dangerous to bike with their kids. 
32. Improve Traffic-Calming and Street Safety on the East Side of the High School. The Village should revisit the idea of a “vehicle-parking-lot diet” at the high school.  Such a diet would enable the Village to raise some revenue by selling a small strip of land fronting on Oakland (the eastern-most portion of the high school parking lot) to a developer. The developer would then develop the land so there are a few new shops on the west side of Oakland.  Such shops would help to “activate-and-humanize” the streetscape there, especially if the shops had on-sidewalk seating/dining.  

Can Changing Streets Change a Community?

There are a lot of things that we could do in Shorewood, to make our streets better.  The stretch of streets in Shorewood that is most in need of reform and revitalization is the inverted “L” formed by Capitol Drive (from the River to Oakland) and Oakland (from Capitol Drive to Edgewood Avenue).  The design there for several reason is not enough “village street,” and too much “North Port Washington Road” or “West Blue Mound Road” (two notoriously bad “stroads” in our area).    

We can do better.  Other villages and towns have acted so that their street designs not only move cars, but also help foster a sense of safety, community, place, and even beauty.  And in the process, they’ve increased property values.

One example of that is what Whitefish Bay did when it redesigned its main street (Silver Spring Drive), to make that street far more ped/bike friendly than it had been.  The result?  Property values have increased, new housing has been built, and businesses have thrived, as people seek to live in a ped/bike friendly neighborhood/community. 

A little further from here, another example: Poynton, a small town in northern England, which has about the same population as Shorewood.  About 10 years ago, Poynton decided something was just wrong about what the heart of its town (and it's main intersection) had become.  Rather than just accept that nothing could be done, they acted.   

In the above box is a short video, showing how small Poynton reclaimed its heritage and history as a peaceful community, by changing one intersection (its main intersection), and the design of the streets that converged at that intersection.  Note the text under the video: "A community in decline, divided by decades of anti-social traffic engineering, is reunited and revitalised by streetscape redesign."  

When the change in Poyton was proposed, many in the community predicted that the change (which involved in part eliminating an intersection traffic signal), would obviously lead to chaos, gridlock, and streets that would be less safe for children, parents, the elderly, and everybody else.

But (as the above video indicates) time proved the naysayers wrong. 

What visionary plans might we develop and adopt in Shorewood, that would lead our village to reclaim its heritage and history as a more peaceful, pleasant and prosperous community?  What changes could we make around the heart of our village (the intersection of Capitol & Oakland, and the area immediately around it)? 

We don’t have to do what Whitefish Bay or Poynton did, but we should be willing to think boldly about what would make Shorewood and our streets contribute to our future success.  What is it that we could do with Capitol and Oakland that would transform the disliked-and-unsafe portions of those streets (which our citizens frequently complain about), to streets that are better and safer?  Streets that we are proud of, and even love?

The author can be reached at sandiependleton@gmail.com, or at 414.418.4469.

Discouraging Reckless Driving in Shorewood

Reckless driving is dangerous. It imperils the driver (and any occupants in the driver’s vehicle), not to mention all the rest of us who are using the streets (and sidewalks).

And probably just as important, reckless driving is highly corrosive to the feeling of safety and order, that makes people want to live in a community. “Why live in Shorewood with all these reckless drivers, if I could live in Fox Point, Cedarberg or Port Washington instead?” 

Can we in Shorewood do anything to discourage reckless driving on our streets? 

There is no perfect solution to this problem, but there are innovative ways to address this problem. One of them is amending the Shorewood Village Code so that a reckless driver’s car or motorcycle can be impounded (and disposed of, if fines are not paid). Another is to start using new "Automated Enforcement Systems" in Shorewood (specifically "noise cameras," and redlight cameras).

Impounding Reckless Drivers’ Vehicles

There is a concern in Wisconsin (including in Shorewood and the Milwaukee area generally) about reckless drivers, and in particular, deaths and injuries caused by reckless drivers. I’ve also heard concern expressed by Shorewood residents regarding motorcyclists riding recklessly in Shorewood, especially groups of riders. In response to concerns regarding reckless drivers, the Wisconsin legislature passed a bill earlier this year (which Governor Evers signed), that enables local jurisdictions to enact ordinances providing that the jurisdiction may impound and dispose of a reckless driver’s vehicle, in certain situations. The new law went into effect on August 5, 2023. The new statute provides in full as follows: 

Wis. Stat. § 349.115. Authority to impound vehicles

(1) A political subdivision may, by ordinance, authorize a law enforcement officer to impound any vehicle used in the commission of a violation of s. 346.62 [Wisconsin’s reckless driving statute] or a local ordinance in strict conformity with s. 346.62 at the time of issuing a citation for the offense if the person cited is the owner of the vehicle and the person has a prior conviction for a violation of s. 346.62 or a local ordinance in strict conformity with s. 346.62 for which a forfeiture was imposed that has not been fully paid. The ordinance may provide for impoundment of the vehicle until the person fully pays the prior forfeiture amount and reasonable costs of impounding the vehicle, including towing or other transportation costs and storage costs.

(2) A political subdivision shall return to its owner a vehicle impounded under sub. (1) upon payment of the amount required under the ordinance.

(3) A political subdivision that has impounded a vehicle under sub. (1) may dispose of the vehicle by following the same procedure as provided for disposing of an abandoned vehicle under s. 342.40 if the impounded vehicle remains unclaimed for more than 90 days after the disposition of the citation for which the vehicle was impounded.

(Emphasis added.) Note that the term “vehicle” as used in Wis. Stat. § 346.62 applies not just to cars and trucks, but also to motorcycles as well (as cars, trucks and motorcycles are all “self-propelled vehicles”). 

As indicated above in  349.115(1), before a vehicle can be impounded, there are several requirements that have to be satisfied (e.g., second reckless driving offense, vehicle belongs to the driver, and the driver has an outstanding unpaid fine for reckless driving).

Of course, the statute is not a perfect approach to the “reckless driver” issue, because many reckless drivers don’t own the vehicle they are driving. But many do. (And my sense is that reckless motorcycle riders in Shorewood, are not operating stolen or borrowed motorcycles, but instead are operating motorcycles they own--which motorcycles they probably want to continue to own.)  

So the new Wisconsin statute is one tool that the state government has created that local governments can use, if (as provided for in subsection 1 above) the local government passes an ordinance.

Milwaukee has passed such an ordinance. Milwaukee also recently asked the legislature to modify Wis. Stat. § 349.115 , to make it even tougher, by making it applicable to first offense reckless drivers.

I’ve not conducted a pole, but my guess is that giving the Shorewood Police the ability to impound reckless drivers’ vehicles would be popular amongst a lot of Shorewood residents.

And the great thing about an impound statute is it has immediate consequences. Unlike just receiving a traffic ticket (one that might be ignored), with this ordinance our young reckless driver would be left by the side of the road, without a car, having to figure out whether he’s going to have to walk home. And the next day, the reckless driver has to figure out what he is going to do to get his car out of the impound lot.

Some Shorewood residents would probably also be happy if signs were posted at the entrances to Shorewood that said something like"RECKLESS DRIVERS' VEHICLES SUBJECT TO IMPOUND AND DISPOSAL."  Such signs wold look something like this:  

I’m not saying I would be in favor of such signs (they aren’t exactly “Welcome to Shorewood”), but I could see some folks in Shorewood who would favor having such on Lake, Capitol and/or Oakland.

Fiscal Impact of Adopting an “Impound Vehicle” Ordinance

As to the fiscal impact of adopting such an ordinance, it would seem like the fiscal impact would not be substantial. The cost of just changing a Village ordinance is relatively low (usually less than $1000), and new signs (if we decide to display signs), are a hundred or so dollars each. When enforcing the new ordinance, the Village would incur towing costs, and might incur unreimbursed impound lot fees (if too many vehicle owners do not promptly act to get their vehicles out of impound). But there would also be some revenue flowing to the Village, if and when abandoned vehicles are disposed of. The cost issue bears further analysis, but the initial and recurring costs of such an ordinance would not seem to be significant (compared to the costs associated with just one significant reckless driver accident, or one high speed chase that goes awry).

“Cities Aren’t Loud, Cars Are Loud”

The above quote comes from one of Michael Savage’s better videos in his “Not Just Bikes” YouTube series.  The video was eye-opening for me, and how I think about “aurally-polluting” motor vehicles within cities (especially motorcycles and sports cars). Most reckless drivers are also creating excessive noise as they proceed recklessly down a street. Fortunately, there are new innovative means available to the Village by which such behavior can be identified, punished, and deterred.

Other communities have come up with innovative ways to discourage drivers who use streets in an excessively noisy way. See this recent New York Times article:  If You’re Too Noisy in New York, New Cameras Might Catch You:  New York City, not exactly known for its peace and quiet, is expanding its use of “noise cameras,” which ticket the drivers of loud cars and motorcycles. 

Or see this recent article from TTI (Transportation Technology International), about the growth in the use of noise cameras in several countries, including in the U.S. For example, as mentioned in the TTI article, the small city of Elkhart, Indiana has had a highly positive experience with cracking down on those who produce excess noise, both specifically to reduce noise, but also to prevent crime. “Elkhart’s experience demonstrates the strong link between noise, guns, drugs, gangs, and crime.”  In short, penalize those who create excess noise, and make it more likely that criminals will choose to stay away from your community. See Elkhart, Indiana Noise Ordinance Yields Drugs and Weapons Arrests and Pays for Itself. According to the above two articles, Elkhart has collected more than $1.6 million in noise fines (enough to more than cover the cost of hiring an extra fulltime “noise-focused” police officer, and acquire two special undercover Ford Mustang police cars).

Using “Automated Enforcement Systems” to Effectively Fight Reckless Driving

First, a bit of terminology (and some acronyms). Collectively, “speed cameras,” “redlight cameras,” “parking enforcement cameras,” and “noise cameras” are camera-and-software systems used in what are called “automated enforcement systems” (“AESs”). And more specifically, “speed cameras” are components of what are known as “automated speed enforcement systems” (“ASESs”), and “redlight cameras” are components of what are known as “traffic control photographic systems” (“TCPSs”).

Shorewood is already using some forms of AESs, and has been for over a decade.

For example, the Village uses an automated camera and software system to detect parking violations, and generate citations (which the officer then places on vehicle windshields). More recently, the Public Safety Committee in December 2023 recommended that the Village Board act to allow Shorewood police officers starting January 1, 2024 to start using its already existing “automated license plate recognition” (ALPR) system. The ALPR system uses cameras in squad cars and software, whereby the cameras automatically scan and record license plate numbers; the system than instantly checks a national crime database, and gives computer alerts to officers, if a scanned license plate is flagged in the national database. For example, an alert might notify the officer that a vehicle license plate in front of his squad car has been reported as stolen, reported as connected with a wanted felon, or connected with an Amber Alert (or similar alert). (For further details about the proposal to implement ALPR technology in Shorewood, see pages 134-137 of the Village Board Agenda Materials from 12/4/23).

Does Shorewood Currently Use Noise Cameras, and What Exactly Are They?

Shorewood currently does not use a noise camera system. For further details about such systems, see the above New York Times article, or the website of Not-A-Loud. Not-A-Loud specializes in providing noise cameras to cities, and its website provides a good deal of information about the detrimental effects of excessive noise, and how its products can help discourage excessively loud driving.

The Legality of AES Systems Generally, and Noise Cameras in Particular

As you may have heard, the use of at least one AES system is currently prohibited in Wisconsin. Specifically, under Wis. Stat. § 349.02(3), “law enforcement officers may not use any radar device combined with photographic identification of a vehicle to determine compliance with motor vehicle speed limits.”  (Emphasis added.)  Because of § 349.02(3), no Wisconsin cities are currently using speed cameras (unlike cities in many other states, which don’t have similar statutes).

In contrast, there is no Wisconsin statute that prohibits a law enforcement officer from using noise cameras (i.e., a camera and software system that automatically records sounds and photographic images, to enforce noise law requirements). I see no argument that can be legitimately made, that Wis. Stat. § 349.02(3) prohibits the use of noise cameras.

Is Driving in an Excessively Noisy Way already Illegal in Shorewood?

In Wisconsin, Police officers are able to ticket operators if they are operating a motor vehicle that is producing “excessive noise.”  See Wis. Stat. § 347.39(1) (relating to motor vehicles and motorcycles); see also Wis. Reg. Trans 305.39 (relating to motorcycle mufflers). What constitutes “excessive noise” under § 347.39(1) is not defined by a specifically measurable standard. Nevertheless, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has rejected the argument that the term “excessive noise” in § 347.39 is so vague, that it deprives a defendant of the right to due process under the law. Cnty. of Jefferson v. Renz, 222 Wis. 2d 424, 437 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding that the officer’s belief that the driver was violating § 347.39 gave the officer probable cause to pull over the driver, and holding that once pulled over, the officer’s observations did not give him probable cause to require the driver to take a breathalyzer test), rev'd on other grounds, 231 Wis. 2d 293 (1999) (while not addressing the portion of the court of appeal’s decision finding the noise statute constitutional, finding that the officer did have probable cause to administer breathalyzer test).

The Shorewood Village Code (“VC”) also has prohibitions against excessive noise. VC § 383-1 provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any noise which is unreasonably loud or any noise which either unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others, within the limits of the Village.

Additionally, Shorewood has a “nighttime” noise ordinance (contained in VC § 383-2), which among other things prohibits the “operation between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any equipment, machinery or vehicles, the use of which is attended by unreasonably loud noise.”  (Emphasis added.)

The penalty for violating a noise ordinance in Shorewood can be steep. First offense is a forfeiture fine of “not less than $10 nor more than $2,000, together with the costs of prosecution, and in default of payment of such forfeiture and costs of prosecution shall be imprisoned in the county jail or house of corrections of Milwaukee County until such forfeiture and costs are paid, but not exceeding 90 days.”  After the first offense, fines go up to $50 to $3,000 per offense. The range of fines in the ordinance enables a judge to distinguish between the temporarily (and perhaps “inadvertently”) noisy driver (for example, a driver who has a muffler go bad on him one day, who receives a citation, but who gets the muffler fixed the next day), compared to the intentionally noisy driver (for example, the driver how intentionally modifies the muffler system on his car or motorcycle, so his vehicle "really roars" at it idles at an intersection, or goes down a street).

Note that the standards in Chapter 383 of the Village Code for what is an “unreasonably loud noise,” is not defined by reference to an objective, mechanically-measurable method. But the words used in the Village Code are likely sufficiently similar to the words used in Wis. Stat. § 347.49, that the Chapter 383 would also likely survive a due process challenge.

The folks at Not-A-Loud have also given thought to how local noise ordinances can be drafted, so that localities have measurable standards in their noise ordinances: “We have a library of vehicle noise ordinances from a US context. If you are interested in proposing a vehicle noise ordinance in your own community, reach out and we would be happy to discuss.”

It is highly likely that noise ordinance statutes that apply objective standards make it more difficult for the noisy operator to defeat a citation, and such standards also make it less likely that such ordinances are enforced in a discriminatory manner. If Shorewood was to amend its ordinances so that there is a more objective standard therein, it would need to be careful to ensure that its noise standard is not more restrictive than the state vehicle noise standard (otherwise, enforcement of the village ordinance might be hampered by a defendant arguing that the village ordinance is preempted by the state noise ordinance).  It might be best (rather than amending the Village Code to provide an objective standard), if the Shorewood Police Department merely had a policy defining an objective standard, by which it determines whether a particular driver is violating the noise provisions in the Wisconsin Statutes or the Village Code.  See Cnty. of Jefferson v. Renz, 222 Wis. 2d at 436-37 (finding state noise statute not unconstitutional vague and unenforceable, where--even though there was no objective standard in the statute--a police officer had and applied an objective standard before he chose to pull over what he determined to be an excessively loud vehicle, that objective standard being that the vehicle's muffler was emiting far more noise than a muffler would, if the muffler was in the same condition as originally installed on a new vehicle).  

Also, while an officer would not be able to use evidence from a noise camera to give an operator a speeding ticket, the officer could use the noise camera evidence to give an excess noise ticket to an operator producing excessive noise, who is also in the act of speeding (or driving recklessly). Not all reckless drivers are violating a noise ordinance when engaging in reckless driving, but a lot of them surely are.

Of course, if cities or villages in Wisconsin were to install such noise cameras, that might result in legislators acting to ban such cameras. For example, perhaps the Wisconsin motorcycle clubs or sportscar clubs would band together and urge legislators to ban the use of noise cameras (even though most motorcycle riders and sportscar owners do not ride or drive in a manner that violates state or local noise ordinances). Or maybe there are legislators who believe that anybody (especially young men) ought to have the right to produce excessive noise as they operate cars, trucks or motorcycles, anywhere they like, whenever they like, including in dense urban environments, or on residential streets. But as the saying goes: “My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins.”  The same might be said of “the other fellow’s ears,” or the other “fellow’s” sense that he or she is living in a relatively-peaceful community where excessively loud and/or reckless-and-unsafe driving is deterred (and if not deterred, punished).

Publicizing that Shorewood Enforces Noise Restriction Laws

The effectiveness of using noise cameras in Shorewood would be enhanced if drivers and motorcycle riders know Shorewood enforces noise restrictions. Some Shorewood residents would probably be happy if signs were posted at some key entrances to Shorewood that said something like "EXCESSIVE VEHICLE NOISE PROHIBITED Village Code Chap. 383."  Other communities use signs like this:  

I'm not saying I would be in favor of such signs (again, they aren't exactly "Welcome to Shorewood"), but I could see some folks in Shorewood who would favor posting such signs at key entrances or intrances, or near schools.

What Would it Cost to Install an Automatic Noise Enforcement System in Shorewood? 

If Shorewood were to start using an automated enforcement system to enforce noise regulations, what would the fiscal impact be? 

Cities in other states that choose to have AESs are often able to do such with a substantially positive budgetary impact. This is because cities are able to enter into “percentage of ticket revenue” agreements with companies that manufacture, install and maintain such cameras. According to the Illinois Policy Institute (a conservative think-tank), in 2021 Chicago collected $89 million worth of revenue due to its use of speed cameras. (And, while it does not appear that Elkhart uses noise cameras, its noise abatement program in is reportedly cash positive for its budget.) 

But at this point, I do not know if there are any suppliers of noise cameras, who offer “percentage of ticket revenue” agreements, or otherwise have agreements that would assure a locality that—if it installs such a company’s noise camera systems—the use of such a system would be at least be revenue neutral for the locality.

It would seem like automated enforcement programs (like noise cameras) would also save a locality money, because they would function as police “force multipliers,” because an actual officer does not have to be out on the street looking for and waiting to spot violators, and then attempting to pull over violators, to issue a citation.

So at this point, I don’t know exactly what costs would be associated with the Village trying to implement a noise camera system. But—if speed camera and redlight camera systems in other communities are any indication—it may be that the Village implementing such a system would bring in revenue to the Village. Think about that. Wouldn’t it be nice if your property taxes went down, because noise cameras are bringing in new revenue?  Especially if the persons paying those fines were reckless drivers?

What about Redlight Cameras – Are those Permitted in Wisconsin?  

As I indicated above, there is a Wisconsin statute (§ 349.02(3)) that prohibits the use of speed camera systems. But, there is no Wisconsin statute that prohibits law enforcement from using a system that automatically records whether a vehicle is running a redlight.

Please note, however, that if you look on the Internet, you can find many “layman” articles indicating that Wisconsin prohibits the use of redlight cameras (see such as this article, or this article). But the assertions made in those articles are not supported by citation, and I have been unable to find any provision in the Wisconsin Statutes that would prohibit the use of redlight cameras in Wisconsin. Some might argue that the use of redlight cameras is prohibited in Wisconsin, because the use of redlight cameras is not expressly permitted by the Wisconsin Statutes; such an argument would probably be based on the pre-emption provisions in the Wisconsin Traffic Code (see Wis. Stat. § 349.03 and § 349.06). But that argument is a strained argument, one not supported by the actual text of those statutes, or the pre-emption case law interpreting those statutes. See, e.g., City of Janesville v. Garthwaite, 83 Wis. 2d 866, 266 N.W.2d 418 (1978)(because the Wisconsin legislature has not acted to prohibit excessive noise made by squealing tires or acceleration of automobile engine, a city ordinance that prohibited such does not interfere with uniform application of the noise provisions in Motor Vehicle Code, and was therefore not invalid as not meeting the Code’s “strict conformity test”). (As always, if you are reading this, and you think I should be aware some authority that would prohibit the use of redlight cameras in Wisconsin, let me know.)

Of course, there have been some highly-publicized efforts in Wisconsin in the last few years, to pass legislation that would allow the use of speed cameras in the City of Milwaukee (or at least permit a certain limited number of those cameras). See 2023 A.B. 85 and 2023 S.B. 107. The passage of those proposed bills would also make it clear that the use of redlight cameras would also be permitted, at least to a certain extent in Milwaukee. But the efforts to pass those bills, at least so far, have been unsuccessful.

Are Redlight Cameras Effective?  Do They Save Lives?

According to the latest research, the answer is "yes." In 2021, 1,109 people were killed in the U.S. in crashes involving redlight running. A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that cameras reduced the fatal redlight running crash rate of large cities by 21 percent, and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14 percent.

Fiscal Impact of Redlight Cameras?

If Shorewood were to start using an automated enforcement system to enforce stop light regulations, what would the fiscal impact be?  Again, as mentioned above, cities in other states (such as Chicago) that have decided to use AESs (including redlight camera systems) are often able to do such with a substantially positive budgetary impact. This is because cities are able to enter into “percentage of ticket revenue” agreements with companies that manufacture, install and maintain such cameras.

So think about it. Wouldn’t it be nice if your property taxes went down, because redlight cameras are bringing in new revenue to the Village?  Especially if the persons paying those fines were reckless drivers choosing to flagrantly ignore redlights (and in the process, creating a substantial danger to themselves and others)?

Of course, if cities or villages in Wisconsin were to install redlight cameras, that might result in legislators acting to ban such cameras. Legislators might seek to ban such cameras on the grounds that they believe the use of such cameras smacks too much of “big brother,” or that the use of such cameras would unfairly penalize lower-income members of society. Or some legislators may believe that everybody (especially young men) ought to have the right to run redlights anywhere they like, whenever they like. To me at least, that seems like an asinine argument, which I would hope no Wisconsin legislator would be willing to make.

Publicizing that Shorewood Uses Redlight Cameras

The effectiveness of using redlight cameras in Shorewood would be enhanced if drivers know Shorewood uses such cameras. Some Shorewood residents would probably be happy if signs were posted at some key entrances to Shorewood that said something like this:  

 

Or if such signs were posted at key intersections, where compliance with redlights have been a problem (e.g., at Capitol & Oakland, and Capitol & Morris). Having such systems and signs would seem especially helpful to discourage the current high rates at which east bound drivers on Capitol ignore the “no turn on red” signs/rules at Morris and also as Oakland). Both those latter two intersections are near schools, and have a high number of students and other pedestrians crossing there.

Are There Better Options to Discourage Reckless Driving?

Cities have other options they can use to try to decrease the amount of reckless driving. Those options include:

• Better drivers-ed programs for young drivers;
• Lobbying legislators to increase the penalties for reckless driving, in the hope that such more substantial penalties will deter such behavior, or encouraging local judges to more often “throw the book” at those cited for reckless driving;
• Hiring more police officers, and deploying those police officers to focus on deterring reckless driving;
• Not hiring more police officers, but having existing officers focus more of their time on traditional enforcement activities (i.e., looking for, attempting to stop, and ticket reckless drivers); and/or
• Redesigning and re-constructing streets, so the design of the streets naturally discourages high speeds (such as by adding narrows, chicanes, mini-traffic circles, speedhumps, protected bike lanes, etc.), or the running of redlights (for example by replacing “redlight intersections” with roundabouts).

Are the above options better options? 

Drivers ed courses tend to be expensive, and it is questionable whether they would affect driver behavior. As to the “stiffer penalties” option, penalties are already high, and that doesn’t seem to be deterring the behavior. As to the “police officer options” identified above, each of those options carries risks (for example, attempting to stop reckless drivers, can lead to high-speed chases), and expenses. And as to the last option, such options can take years if not decades to implement, and are expensive.

If it is the case that cities in Wisconsin can implement noise camera systems and/or redlight camera systems in at least a revenue-neutral manner (and if cities can adopt and implement “reckless driver vehicle impound and disposal” ordinances for little or no cost), it would seem like those two options would be less expensive (and as to camera systems maybe even revenue positive) compared to the costs associated with any of the above five alternative methods. The use of AESs could also help to reduce alleged incidents of racial profiling and help to minimize the number of stressful police-driver traffic-stop interactions.

And there is nothing that says that we can try only one method to deter reckless driving.  

Does the Community Support the Village Moving to Use Noise Cameras or Redlight Cameras to Discourage Reckless Driving?

That’s a difficult question. As with many things, it is likely that “the devil’s in the details.” 

First and foremost, there is the issue of cost. It is probably fair to say that there are few in Shorewood who want their property taxes to increase. So it is unlikely the community would support such camera systems unless state or federal funds could be obtained to pay for such, or if contracts with providers were available that would make such systems revenue neutral. Of course, if the implementation of such systems in Shorewood would likely lead to a positive fiscal impact (or better yet, a promise that the revenue would be applied to lowering property taxes), such would likely increase support amongst residents for such systems. 

Clearly, speed cameras are politically unpopular, so unpopular that about 30 states (including Wisconsin) ban them. Studies also indicate, however, that speed cameras have become more popular, where the public believes that their use will cut down on alleged incidents of racial profiling, and minimize police-driver interactions.

But we are not talking here about speed cameras. And the Village is already using some forms of AESs (an automatic parking enforcement system, and likely as of January 1, 2024, an “Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) and Notification” system).

We are talking here about redlight cameras, and noise cameras. Only seven states—Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia—prohibit redlight cameras. And, as best I can tell, no state bans noise cameras.

As to the “details,” as to redlight cameras, maybe Shorewood residents would only support trying such cameras at only a few intersections (e.g., Capitol & Wilson, and/or Oakland & Edgewood); or would want to ensure the system is calibrated so it would only issue automatic tickets to flagrant redlight runners. Police officers have never cited every driver they see who technically violate traffic light rules, so even if Shorewood starts using redlight cameras, it would retain the discretion to calibrate the redlight cameras, so that they only issue automatic tickets to “flagrant” redlight runners (i.e., the type of drivers who pose the highest risk to others, and who are most likely to engender a sense of lawlessness and disorder in the community).

As to the “details” as to noise cameras, maybe Shorewood residents would support noise cameras only in the follow situations: (1) only at a few specific locations (for example, near schools); (2) only if Shorewood adopts objectively-measurable noise standard policies (rather than the Village’s Code’s current rather subjective standard); and/or (3) only if the standards are different, depending on whether daytime or nighttime hours are involved (e.g., 10:00pm to 7:00am).

Conclusion:  We Don’t Have to Accept the Status Quo

Reckless drivers are harmful to Shorewood and Shorewood residents in multiple ways. There are things that we in Shorewood can do, if we want to, to address this problem. Those include:

• Enacting, publicizing and enforcing a reckless driver vehicle impound ordinance; and/or
• Investigating and implementing new AESs in Shorewood (noise cameras and/or redlight cameras).

I hope we can get a discussion going about addressing this problem, sooner rather than later. If you favor the Village adopting such an ordinance, or trying such cameras, you may want to consider contacting members of the Shorewood Village Board, so they know you are concerned about reckless driving in Shorewood, and that you favor the Village investigating the above options.

In the meantime, be careful out there.

As always, I’m willing to engage in civil dialogue with anyone who wants to discuss what I write about in this blog. Also, if you believe I’ve overlooked relevant authority, evidence or research, I’m interested in hearing from you about such).

Santa Rampage Ride 2023! Don't Miss It!

By Alexander "Sandie" Pendleton

President, Greater Shorewood Bikers, Inc.

The Bike Fed is holding its annual  Santa Cycling Rampage Ride on Saturday, December 2nd, and you’re invited! 

Click on the above video, to be amazed and put in to a holly jolly mood.

If you’ve never participated in the Santa Ride, I highly recommend it.  See the above video and the article “Why Ride in the Santa Cycle Rampage,” which I penned for the Bike Fed a few years back, as published in Urban Milwaukee (complete with 10 “can’t miss” holiday dad jokes). 

The Santa Ride is a joyous and silly way to get in the holiday mood, and it’s the gateway drug of winter biking. It also helps raise money for the Bike Fed, so it can continue to do its crucial and important work. Riders are encouraged to dress as Santa, or to wear some other creative holiday-themed costume (complete Santa costumes start as low as about $16 on Amazon). 

Those of you who are doing the Ride from Shorewood, Glendale, Whitefish Bay or other points North, are invited to gather at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday December 2nd at Three Lions Pub in Shorewood on Oakland Avenue (they are expecting us, and they are an official sponsor of the Ride this year). The plan is to gather there, then ride over together to Café Hollander (leaving Three Lions at 9:30 sharp, so we get to Café Hollander before the “Southern Wave of Santas” gets there around 10:30). 

The ride will occur come rain, shine, blizzard, hell, or high water.  (Your bike has no need to hibernate during the winter months, nor do you.)  The ride (especially from Three Lions to Cafe Hollander) is a family-friendly, costumed, leisurely roll of holiday good cheer of less than 3 miles, generally occuring on low-traffic volume streets.  (The full MKE ride is much longer, and will have a lot more Santas than our segment will.)  

If you can't ride that day for whatever reason, but still are interested in biking issues in Shorewood and MKE, I encourage you to stop by at Three Lions or Cafe Hollander, to have a beer or a cup of coffee with us, to talk (plot?) about biking and better streets in our area.  Just watching the river of Santas that will go by Cafe Hollander is an amazing sight to see.     

Riders starting at Three Lions are highly encouraged (but not required) to support the Wisconsin Bike Fed by formally signing up for the full Santa Rampage Ride at this link.  I recommend the event (or whatever portion thereof you can participate in or watch).  Individual results may vary, but I’ve heard more than one person described participating in the full Santa Ride as a mind-expanding, life-changing experience.  

Three Lions serves wonderful breakfast food, has a wide selection of beers, and they are offering drink specials to all riders that day.  Convince yourself and your friends this is the year you are all going to ride a part of the Rampage. Hope to see you at Three Lions on the 3rd.  Cheers!     

P.S.: Buried in all of the frivolity of the Santa Ride is a serious issue too, as it helps spread the message--in a fun and postive way--that our streets should be for everyone, not just cars:

Please note: on the day of the Ride, each participant in the Shorewood Santa Ride will be asked to agree to a Waiver of Liability Agreement.

Let's Talk About Rethinking I-794

Is there any place sadder in Milwaukee than Pompeii Square?

  
At the height of Milwaukee's rush to capture as many federal highway dollars as possible, Milwaukee was willing to demolish its historic downtown train station (to make way for the proposed Lakefront North Freeway), and tear down Milwaukee's oldest Italian catholic church (the Blessed Virgin of Pompeii Church), and in the process destroy a once vibrant Italian neighborhood. Pompeii Square is a sad, sad reminder of those decisions.

President Eisenhower never wanted interstate roads to go through cities, and certainly not through dense residential neighborhoods. According to the Federal Highway Administration's website, President Eisenhower said this at a high level meeting in April 1960: "[President Eisenhower] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way." (Emphasis added.) 

Eisenhower was a cosmopolitan man, who had traveled and visited great cities all over the world. He understood the importance of a good network of interstate highways between states, and between cities, but he also understood the importance of vibrant, downtown urban areas (and never intended interstate routes to go through or destroy those downtown areas, or through neighborhoods).  

As many of you know, my office is downtown, on Wisconsin Avenue near the Milwaukee River. For the majority of my career as a lawyer, my office has been in downtown Milwaukee. I'm not anti-car. I own a car, and I regularly use it (even if I'm trying to use it less than I did previously, for several reasons). But I have always thought that I-794 blights the area around it, and creates a barrier between the downtown and the Third Ward. I hate walking around I-794, I hate biking around I-794, and I hate driving around I-794. If you are on Clybourne, or on one of the streets adjacent to I-794, there are very few places (with only 1 or 2 exceptions I can think of) that are capable of sparking a feeling of joy.

   
I can remember visiting Milwaukee in the 1970's when I was a kid, and riding along in a car on I-43 and looking at houses that were next to the interstate, and thinking "wow, the poor people who live right here, who had this huge highway built right next to their homes, and who have to live next to all of this noise, exhaust, and traffic." Even then, I had this sense that what had happened was somehow unfair, wrong, and unjust.  

According to DOT, if we were to re-establish Milwaukee's traditional street grid where I-794 currently is, and remove that elevated, limited access highway, we would be opening up more than 30 acres of downtown and/or lake-view property to new development.

 
To me, this is an opportunity for us to reconsider our past mistakes (or sins), and chart a new path. This gives us an opportunity to think like a 21st Century city (not a 1960s city). The young, educated, intelligent, talented and creative workforce that downtown businesses are working hard to recruit, are looking for vibrant urban streets and neighborhoods to live and work in. No one wants to live or work next to an elevated interstate highway. 

It is possible to have surface streets that are vibrant for shops, pedestrians and other users, and which streets still move a large volume of cars (see for example the Champs Elysees in Paris, which has a traffic volume of about 65,000 cars per day.) What would Paris be like if instead of the Champs Elysees, that was instead replaced with an elevated, interstate highway? That would be an urban planning sin of collosal proportions.

Removing the Park East Freeway led to over one billion dollars in private investment in that neighborhood, and "carmageddon" did not occur, despite many naysayers' predictions. Same thing happened in San Francisco, when they took down the Embarcadero freeway, and other urban freeways in other cities. It is estimated that replacing I-794 with a traditional street grid would lead to $1.5 billion dollars worth of investment in that area.

 
I urge you to explore Rethink 794's website to learn about the history of 794, and about why re-establishing a traditional street grid, and opening up more than 30 acres to new development, could be such a great thing for Milwaukee's future.

There are trade offs we all need to weigh as we consider whether to replace an elevated I-794. If I-794 is replaced (rather than repaired at great expense), that may result in my drive from the river to the lake taking a few more minutes than it currently does. But in exchange, I expect I will get a revitalized, and re-connected downtown and Third Ward. Maybe I'll get a few new bars or restaurants with outdoor seating, that I really like, or some new stores. Maybe I'll see Marquette University High School (or some other school) relocate to a new facility, that has great lake views, and sports facilities for kids. To me, the speed of the drive is not the most important thing, if what I get in return is a better drive, a better street, and a better neighborhood.

  
For example, if the Lake Freeway (North) had been built from somewhere on the Eastside through Juneau Park to the Hoan Bridge and I-794 (hooking up the proposed extension of the Park East Freeway to the lakefront), I could probably today get to the Marquette Interchange faster than I can today (driving from Shorewood, along the lake). But at what cost? What would happen to my views of the lake, the art museum, and people enjoying Veterans Park while I make that drive? That would disappear (think of how on the Eastside of Cleveland, I-90 hugs Lake Erie, and blights that beautiful shoreline for miles). Would I want an elevated, limited access freeway acting as a barrier between the Eastside (where my church is, and where many of my friends live), and the lakefront? Certainly, no.

To bring the debate or discussion examples even closer to Shorewood, what about the changes we've made over the last ten years along Wilson Drive? Let's face it, Wilson Drive used to be used by many as something like an "expressway" between Capitol Drive and Hampton Avenue. We've changed it. Yes, you and I and most other people are driving a little slower on Wilson Drive these days. But I know I'm enjoying that drive more than I used to, and I think the traffic calming measures that have gone in place on Wilson has made Wilson a better street (both in terms of to drive on, to live on, to walk on and to bike on). 

Or look at Oakland Avenue in Shorewood north of Capitol Drive. We've put in traffic calming measures on that stretch of street, and its paid off in residential and commercial development for Shorewood. Or the new traffic calming on-street features on Estabrook Parkway? Who in Shorewood wants to go back to the old Wilson Drive, the old Estabrook Park/Parkway, or the old Oakland Avenue (that had no street life)? Certainly I don't.

On August 1st and August 2nd the Wisconsin DOT will hold a public meeting to consider several options relating to I-794.  I urge you to visit the Rethink I-794 website, scroll down, and learn about:

• The history of interstate highway proposals and construction in downtown Milwaukee; and

• The options that are currently proposed by the DOT. 

I’ve attended several meetings on this issue (including a half day symposium at Marquette University, that featured a wide spectrum of viewpoints on this issue). I've also read the articles I could find about this project. I admit that at first, I was sceptical about taking down I-794. And I still want to hear more from the DOT (and others) regarding how taking down I-794 would affect travel times in downtown Milwaukee, or for drivers traveling through that area (such as people who live in Shorewood or St. Francis). But based on what I've seen so far, my current conclusion is that re-establishing the traditional grid would help to create a more vibrant downtown Milwaukee and lakefront.

  
Key for me is the positive developments that followed the taking down of other interstate highways in urban areas. Thirty U.S. cities are now considering doing such. Taking down the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee led to over a billion dollars in private investment in that area. I like the Deer District, and what that has done for Milwaukee's image. Similarly, San Francisco's decision to remove the Embarcadero Freeway--a decision that was hugely controversial at the time--has been a huge success for that city.  

If elevated 794 is removed (rather than repaired) it is not like all the vehicles that currently travel on I-794 will (after redevelopment) be traveling on one surface street (e.g., Clybourne). This is becase a traditional urban street grid (as opposed to a limited access elevated highway) enables the diffusion of traffic (and more route options for drivers).

 

We can have nice, beautiful, vibrant streets in Milwaukee. Or at least, as indicated by the above 1909 drawing, prior city planners thought so.

The bottom line is Milwaukeeans of good will working together (1) defeated the proposed Lakefront (North) Freeway, and the proposed extension of the Park East Freeway all the way to the lakefront; and (2) successfully advocated for the freeing up all of the real estate that was economically blighted by the existence of the Park East Freeway. Over one billion dollars in private real estate investment followed. From what I've seen so far, similar postive results will be achieved, if the traditional Milwaukee street grid can be re-established, and 30 acres of valuable now blighted, under-utilized downtown real estate can be re-developed in the current I-794 blight zone.

This may overly simplify the issue for some, but isn't it time we spend less time discusing what the Milwaukee Public Museum is going to do with the "Streest of Old Milwaukee" display, and more time disucussing what we can do to create great vibrant streets in a Future Milwaukee? 

I encourage you to learn more about this issue. One way to do that is to attend one of the DOT meetings, and talk with DOT officials, and your "neighbors" (using that term in the broad, biblical sense). The details about those meetings are at this link. Or, if you can't attend in person, the link tells you how you can submit written comments. 

If you have studies, statistics or views that you think I should consider (as I think through exactly what my final position on this issue is, and which of the options the DOT has proposed I support), I welcome the oportunity to hear about such. And, as always, I'm more likely to be persauded by research, well-designed predictions by qualified experts, and statistics, as opposed to subjective predictions that it is obvious that "carmageddon" will obviously occur. I believe we can have a civic, fact-rich discussion on this issue, and I hope you do as well.