Village Board Defers Lake Drive Protected vs. Non-Protected Bike Lane Issue

On November 7^th, after a productive discussion, the Shorewood Village Board deferred the issue of protected bike lanes vs. non-protected bike lanes for two weeks. Such delays on important issues are not unusual, and here the purpose of the delay is so that the Parks & Public Spaces Committee (and its Pedestrian & Bike Safety Subcommittee) can consider the issue, and make a recommendation to the Board.

The P&PS Committee will meet on Tuesday, November 15^th at Village Hall, starting at 6:00. The meeting is open to the public, and anyone who wishes to come and hear the presentation, and/or offer comments, is welcome to attend. (I plan on attending, as there are several bike and pedestrian related issues that I want to offer comments on.)  Those of you who want to see protected bike lanes on Lake Drive should consider attending Tuesday's P&PS Committee meeting.  

It is fair to say that the Village Board came close to expressing its approval for Option 3 on the 7^th, as opposed to Option 4 (the protected-bike-lane option GSB has been advocating for). As discussed below, ultimately the final decision is for the DOT, because Lake Drive is a state highway, but it is likely that the Village Board’s position would carry some weight with the DOT, as the DOT makes its decision. At the November 7 meeting, a motion was made by Trustee Kathy Stokebrand to express support for Option 3. After further discussion, the motion failed 4-2. The Board then voted 5-1, to defer a decision on the issue for two weeks, so that the P&PS Committee can consider the issue at its monthly meeting on Nov. 15^th.  The Village has also written to all residents on Lake Drive, urging them to weigh in the four alternative designs.  

Concerns Discussed at the Meeting

As indicated in my below article, of the four bike lane options the DOT has recently defined, prior to the meeting on the 7^th, the Director of the Village’s DPW (Leeann Butschlick) made staff’s recommendation to the Village Board, indicating that staff was recommending the Board express its support for “Option 3.” That option is shown on DOT slide 19 (and is entitled “Buffered 5-Foot Bike Lane – Parking at Curb”). In support of that option, Director Butschlick in her written materials to the Board indicated the following: “This option provides for the requested buffered dedicated bike lane while providing the standard layout of travel and parking lanes familiar to the traveling public.”

During the debate about Option 3 vs. Option 4, President McKaig passed along three concerns that had been raised by Village staff regarding Option 4. Here’s my understanding of the concerns (my apologies in advance to President McKaig and/or DPW staff if my notes of the meeting do not completely capture the concerns identified during the meeting; the meeting was recorded, so anyone wanting to hear the concerns as stated at the meeting, can watch the video). Here is my understanding of the three concerns: 

1. Snow Maintenance. If the village opts for Option 4, it would need to have a plan as to how that bike lane and buffer zone (an 8’ width in total, that would be next to the curb, and protected from the driving lane by a parking lane) would be maintained during the winter months. The Village, of course, has many miles of streets (and sidewalks and trails in Village parks) that need to be addressed and tended to when snow falls. President McKaig passed along the view of DPW, that the DPW (as currently staffed, funded and equipped), would be unable to remove snow from a Lake Drive parking-protected bike lane, if that is the option ultimately selected by the DOT.
2. Leaf Removal. There was also a concern (mentioned briefly) raised about leaf collection, if Option 4 is the option selected/built. Although President McKaig’s comments on this issue were brief, as I understand the concern, if Option 4 is selected the DPW has apparently indicated that could make it difficult (more difficult than if Option 3 were selected) for the Village’s leaf removal crew to remove leaves raked and placed along Lake Drive on that east side of the street.
3. Safety. If the Village opts for Option 4, would that be less safe than Option 3? Again, although the discussion was brief, President McKaig indicated that Village staff had raised concerns on this issue, particularly as to whether, if Option 4 were to be selected, that would create “sight line issues,” making it more difficult (if I understood President McKaig’s brief comment) for drivers pulling into or out of driveways on the east side of Lake Drive to see northbound bike riders riding in the protected bike lane envisioned by Option 4.

I’m looking forward to hearing from Village staff more at next week’s meeting regarding their views on this issue. But here are my preliminary thoughts or questions on these issues, based on the information I have now.

1.    Snow. Whenever a bike trail, bike lane or protected bike lane is proposed, it is not uncommon for snow removal issues (or objections) to be raised. I readily admit that the Shorewood DPW has a difficult job when it comes to snow removal (especially some years), and they do miracles with limited resources, serving a clientele who can often have high expectations as to Village services. Staff members and Board members are sensitive to this issue, as it is they who are the ones who need to deal with resident complaints when those come in.

It is not like the DPW is oblivious to the needs and desires of winter bike riders and winter bike commuters. The DPW clears snow of the "bike path" through River Park, and often gets that job done before the County crews get that job done on the Oak Leaf Trail.  

Is It Possible to Manage Snow, So that Winter Biking Occurs?

Protected bike lanes exist in many other cities that have snow. That’s true in the U.S. (e.g., in Milwaukee, Madison, Minneapolis, Chicago). And that’s true in many cities in Canada, and in Scandinavian countries.

I’ve mentioned previously the YouTube series “Not Just Bikes,” a well-produced, thoughtful and entertaining series created and narrated by Jason Slaughter, that explores many issues about “strong cities,” bikes, and urban street design. Often the theme or lesson of Slaughter’s videos is that it is multiple public policy decisions that lead to high levels of bike riding in some countries and some communities, compared to others. I highly recommend the series. In one of the episodes, Slaughter addresses how snow removal affects whether or not residents in a community bike in the winter. Below is a link to an episode entitled “Why Canadians Can’t Bike in the Winter (But Finnish People Can).”

 

So, the lesson is that snow removal has not been an insurmountable problem in other communities, precluding the creation of protected bike lanes in those communities.

As I mentioned above, the discussion during the actual board meeting was relatively short. So further exploration of these issues will probably have to wait until the P&PS Committee meeting on the 15^th.

What Should be Discussed on the 15^th About Snow? 

On the snow maintenance issue, questions I can think of now that I would want to ask staff are questions such as the following. What snow removal equipment does the Village currently have? The Village clears snow off 8’ wide trails in River Park and Atwater Park – can that same equipment be used to clear an 8’ wide section (5’ bike lane and 3’ buffer lane) next to the curb on Lake Drive? 

If the DPW’s current equipment is not sufficient, maybe the issue is “if we were to invest in new equipment that would enable the DPW to clear an 8’ wide section of street on Lake Drive, what would the cost be?” Let’s discuss what that cost is, and weigh that cost against the benefits of protected bike lanes.

For example, on November 7^th he Board approved expenditures of up to $60,000 to obtain and install three sets of pedestrian blinking crossing beacons, which would be installed on Lake Drive when it is reconstructed, with a goal of enhancing pedestrian safety. If we want to install protected bike lanes on Lake Drive, and equipment needs to be acquired so that snow can be removed from those lanes, what will that equipment cost?

And if it’s a staff issue (e.g., Option 4 would require more staff hours than Option 3), let’s discuss what the differential is, and the cost of that differential.

Or, if the issue is “we would need to contract-out snow removal as to a protected bike lane on Lake Drive if Option 4 is the selected option,” let’s discuss that issue. I understand the Village already contracts out some other snow removal jobs in the Village. For example, the Village in its design for Oakland Avenue reconstruction has included addition pedestrian bump outs (to improve pedestrian safety), and there was a comment made at the Village Board meeting on the 7th that the Village is going to contract out to a private service the job of snow removal at those bump outs. If this snow removal job as to Option 4 really would need to be contracted out, let’s discuss what that cost would be, and weigh that cost against the benefits of protected bike lanes. Also, if the Village is already planning on contracting-out snow removal at the bump outs at five intersections on Lake Drive that it approved on November 7^th, ho much more would it cost the Village, if the Village hires the same service provider to also clear the snow on a protected bike lane.  Or, many households that or on the east side of Lake Drive are already contracting for snow removal as to the household private driveways (some of them quite long).  Should the Village contract with one of those service providers, that is already coming to Lake Drive to do snow removal (and already have the pick-up trucks that might be better suited to removing snow from an 8' wide area next to the curb, if Option 4 is selected.

Overall, we should consider/discuss any increased cost of snow removal that might be associated with Option 4 (if there is any), compared to Option 3, against the increase in property values in the Village associated with having first-class, modern protected bike lanes in the Village (and other benefits associated with a protected bike lane).

Or, let’s discuss or explore options that might negate the necessity of either buying new equipment, or contracting out snow management, and still get snow managed in the area of a protected bike lane on Lake Drive.

For example, the Village regulations already allow for a declaration of a snow emergency (which temporary prohibits parking between midnight and 6:00 a.m.), and allows the DPW to also post “temporary no parking” signage on any street, so that the snow can be cleared. If a snow emergency was to be declared, the DPW could either plow unimpeded Lake Drive overnight, or (if the snow plowing needed to be done outside of those hours), put up temporary no parking signs, and plow all of Lake Drive while such signs are up. Because no bollards (or other structures) are involved in Option 4, with no vehicles parked on Lake Drive, the Village could proceed as it regularly proceeds now to remove snow from the full width of Lake Drive. If the Village decides to use this “declare a snow emergency” option, it would appear that the Village would not need to purchase any new equipment, or contract-out to a third party the cost of snow removal on any portion of Lake Drive.  No additional personnel should be needed either, because the crews would be clearing snow from the same width of Lake Drive that it is now.

If current Village “snow emergency” regulations are inadequate, let’s explore or discuss modifying current regulations, in a way that could address the challenge. For example, many communities have “snow emergency route regulations,” that designate certain streets (or sides of streets) as snow emergency routes, and which prohibit parking on those streets, whenever it snows over a certain amount in a 24-hour period. If the Village were to adopt such a regulation, it could designate the east side of lake drive as such a route, and post signs there indicating such (for example, simple signs that say "SNOW ROUTE No Parking Until Snow Removed." Doing that should enable the DPW use its current street snowplows to clear snow from the entire width of Lake Drive.

We should consider too the issue of how many cars park on Lake Drive on the east side of the street, during or immediately after snow falls? (It would be nice to have data on this, but I’m not aware that such studies have been done, or that such data exists.) Would invoking a Snow Emergency, or designating Lake Drive as a Snow Emergency Route, cause much disruption to on-street parking patterns? The Village already has overnight parking regulations (no parking 2 - 5 a.m.), and daytime parking regulations; it would not seem an insurmountable problem to craft regulations that would restrict parking during certain times on Lake Drive, so that snow can be removed.  And the Village Board could instruct the Police Department not to give permission to any resident who asks for permission to park overnight on the east side of Lake Drive, if snow is falling or it is within 24 hours of a snow storm.

Looking to other streets in the Village, the DPW already deals with dynamic and varied street environments already (streets with cars parked on them, and some that have none, and "alternating side parking regulations on Oakland Avenue, and parts of Capitol Drive).  If there is a will to get parking regulations modified in a sensible way so that snow plowing can occur, there seems like there ought to be a way.  And it must be remembered, it's not the bikes or bike riders who are causing this problem for snow plows; instead, its car drivers who believe they should have the unfettered right to park free on any Shorewood street (especially Lake Drive), even in the middle of or immediattely after a snow fall. 

We all know that after certain snowfalls, all snow does not get removed, even if a plow has gone over the street in question. Sometimes that is due to parked cars on a particular street. And sometimes that is just because of the nature of the snow fall in question. Sometimes snow becomes packed hard on the street, and if the temperature stays below a certain temperature, there is nothing the DPW can do to remove such “pack ice.”

Drivers drive on (and winter bike riders ride on) streets in Shorewood that have on them such “pack ice,” snow, or just plain ice. If Option 4 were to be selected and such pack ice were to exists in a bike lane on Lake Drive, that won’t be a novel winter street condition.

When it comes to whether winter bike riders are expecting perfection, I don’t think that is the case. Drivers in Shorewood do not expect perfection when it comes to snow plowing.  Also, winter bike riders (many of whom now ride with studed tires) are not "delicate flowers" that are going to wilt at the prospect of riding on a street that either has not yet been plowed, or which (even though it has bee plowed), still has some snow on it. Winter bikers tend to be an experienced, hearty and resourceful group of people (compared to those who bike in spring, summer and fall). Winter riders are used to biking on snow or ice-covered streets (or bike trails). If a bike lane for some reason one day is not in good winter riding conditions, winter riders do "a work around" (or avoid that street or trail, or don’t go biking that day). The phrase “the perfect should not be the enemy of the good” comes to my mind, when considering this snow maintenance issue. Is this a real, determinative issue, or only a way (or excuse) to avoid doing something in Shorewood that we have not done before?

I don’t claim to be an expert on snow removal, or the DPW’s budget. I look forward to learning more about Village staff’s views on this issue on the 15^th, and seeing if this is an insurmountable problem with Option 4, or a problem that can be addressed (and if so, what would be the best way to address the problem). But again, other communities (including budget-strapped Milwaukee, and including many communities that on average get a lot more snow than Shorewood does) have protected bike lanes, and they seem to be able to handle snow removal on protected bike lanes, even when we are talking about raised-protected bike lanes, or bollard-protected bike lanes--neither of which is being proposed by the DOT for Shorewood. 

Stay tuned for an upcoming blog post that will discuss what Milwaukee is proposing for its portion of Lake Drive. More details to follow, but Milwaukee is proposing a parking-protected bike lane on the east side of Lake Drive, and a curb- protected bike lane on the west side of Lake Drive.  That is, Milwaukee is proposing/supporting protected bike lanes on both sides of Lake Drive in Milwaukee.  Obviously, Milwaukee doing such suggests that Milwaukee does not see the snow plowing issue as insurmountable. Also obviously, it would seem like there would be some advantage to having a consistent protected bike lane design in Milwaukee and Shorewood on Lake Drive.  

2.  Leaf removal. I don’t know about you, but sometimes I rake my yard’s leaves out to the terrace, and then when the leaf vacuum truck comes by, cars are parked in front of my house, and the vacuum truck goes right on by. Maybe the truck gets them next time (when cars are not parked in front of my house), or maybe it doesn’t (and I end up bagging the leaves, or they sometimes just stay until the spring thaw/yard clean up). This, of course, is a first world problem to have.

I assume that people on Lake Drive experience the same issue. So as we consider which option is better (Option 3 or 4), we have to keep in mind that Option 3 (allowing car parking next to the curb) can also make it impossible (or at least more difficult) for the Village’s leaf vacuum truck to get to the leaves piled on the terrace next to the curb.

Either way, considering the relatively low rates of parking during the late fall time period on most sections of Lake Drive, I do not see this as an insurmountable problem.

Also, we need to hear from Village staff, their view as to whether the DPW’s current leaf collection equipment could be used on the east side of Lake Drive, if Option 4 is selected. If not, what would be the equipment the DPW might need to get leaves moved to a location that they could be vacuumed up? I routinely see in Milwaukee leaf collection crews using pick-up trucks or "parking jeeps" with plow like structures on their front ends pushing leaves into large piles, so those can be vacuumed up by larger trucks. If Shorewood’s vacuum truck is too large to fit down an 8’ lane width protected bike lane (5’ of bike lane, and 3’ of buffer), could the Village do a similar work around with a Village pick-up truck or gator?  Or again, just like some communities have "street sweeper day" parking regulations, it would seem like the Village could likewise adopt such regulations, that would give them certain days, when parking would be prohibited on the east side of Lake Drive, so that parked cars would not impede vacuum truck access to leaves piled by residents on the terrace.

3.  Safety. I hope we can have a real discussion about safety. If some folks have studies that indicate conventional bike lanes (Option 3) are safer than protected bike lanes (Option 4), let’s see those studies, and let’s discuss them.

We should also be sure we are defining the safety issue, and its components. I suggest that there are a couple of them. Let’s first discuss collisions between cars and bikes. If Option 3 (conventional bike lane), as compared to Option 4 (protected bike lane) is selected, would that:

• Decrease the chances of a bike-car crashes?
• Decrease the severity of a bike-car collisions to a bike rider? 

As a person who regularly rides (and drives) on Lake Drive, and has done so for over 30 years, my experience (yours may differ) has been that it is very rare (at least for me) to see a car pulling out of or into a driveway on the east side of Lake Drive. I know it happens, but I just rarely see it. I’ve never encountered a problem with it. 

So given the level of bike traffic and the low-frequency level of bike rider interaction with “driveway” cars, it would seem that Option 3 would not decrease appreciably the frequency of collisions between bikes and “driveway” cars.

Both Option 3 and Option 4 present “sight line” issues. If one diagrams it out, the sight line issue is probably “a wash.” Here is why:

• With Option 3 (with cars parked next to the curb), one can imagine a scenario where a driver-pulling-out-of-a-driveway does not see a northbound bike rider in the bike lane, because the driver’s view is blocked by cars parked next to the curb, south of the driveway the car is pulling out of. But a driver-pull-into-a-driveway (approaching from either north or south on Lake Drive) would have a clear view of the bike lane, and any bike in the bike lane.
• With Option 4 (with the bike lane next to the curb), one can imagine a scenario where a driver-pulling-into-a-driveway does not see a northbound bike rider in the bike lane, because the driver’s view is block by cars parked in the parking lane to the south of the lane being pulled into. But a driver-pulling-out-of-a-drive (intending to head either north or south on Lake Drive), would have a clear view of the bike lane, and any bike rider in the bike lane.

If I’m missing something in my analysis above, let me know.

It’s on the severity question of car-bike collisions that I think Option 4 is superior to Option 3. Here’s why.

Cars pulling into or out of driveways tend to be driving at a relatively low speed (5 or 10 mph). Compare that to the speed of a car in the driving lane on Lake Drive (30 mph, or sometime 40 or even 50 mph). If I’m going to be on a bike, and have a collision with a car, I would prefer to have a collision with a car going between 5 and 10 mph, as opposed to 30-50 mph. The 5-10 mph could cause injury. The 30-50 mph would likely cause death.

Next, let’s discuss car-car collisions. If Option 3, as compared to Option 4 is selected, would that:

• Decrease the chances of car-car collisions?
• Decrease the severity of a car-car collisions?

Again, for the same reasons as indicated above, the “sight line” issue is probably “a wash.”

As to the severity of any car-collisions that might occur, it is here where I think Option 4 shows itself again to be the better option. Here’s why.

It should be remembered that studies regarding streets that have protected bike lanes (as in Option 4) indicate that they decrease the incident of all types of collisions (including car-car collisions). What explains this? Some of this is due to the traffic calming effect of protected bike lanes, but there are likely other explanations as well (for example, greater predictability of where bikes are going to be, and decreases in the opportunity for cars to change lanes while traveling).

So as residents on Lake Drive consider what it would be like to pull out of, or into, driveways on Lake Drive, residents should consider which Option (Option 3 or Option 4), is going to result in traffic calming, that is, which is more likely bring down speeds on Lake Drive (especially speeds in excess of 30 mph), and which is likely to decrease cars switching lanes as they travel on Lake Drive.

My sense is that Option 4 would probably have a greater traffic calming (speed reduction) effect than Option 3. This is because when drivers perceive a narrow driving path, they naturally tend to slow their speed. With parked cars right next to the northbound driving lane (compared to having just a painted-buffer-and-bike-lane next to that driving lane), that would give a “narrow driving path view,” especially to cars headed North. Of course, if cars traveling north or south on Lake Drive decrease their speed, that both reduces the risk of collisions occurring, and decreases the severity of any accidents that do occur.

One final thought on the “sight line” issue. Much of the issue of whether a driver’s view of approaching traffic would be obscured would depend on how far back from a driveway a parked vehicle is. My understanding is that Shorewood parking regulations require that parked vehicles park no closer than 4’ to an “unmarked, regular” driveway, or no closer than allowed as indicated by signage or paint (on the curb or on the street). As the design for Lake Drive is developed, no matter which option is selected, if the DOT were to want to limit the chances that a driver’s view would be limited, there would be nothing that would preclude the DOT as it designs the paint scheme for Lake Drive (in conjunction with the Village) from defining parking set-backs from driveways at more than four feet. That would involve a trade-off of course. Doing such would likely cut down on the total potential parking spots on Lake Drive. So a calculation would need to be done, to determine what the reduction would be, at various setback-levels. Village residents would need to consider what they want more; more parking spaces on the east side of Lake Drive, or making it potentially more easy, comfortable and safer as drivers exit and enter driveways. If sight line issues are a concern with either option, the above would be at least one way to address the concern. 

The final decision as to which option the Village is going to endorse will likely be made by the Village Board at its next meeting on November 21^st. That position will then be considered by the DOT. The DOT has indicated that it will hold a 3^rd Public Information Meeting regarding Lake Drive, sometime in January or February 2023. Ultimately, because this Lake Drive is state highway, the DOT will make the final decision on which of the four alternatives will be constructed.

Again, if you want to weigh in on these issues, you can attend the upcoming Village meetings on these issues (either the P&PS meeting starting at 6:00 on Tues., Nov. 15^th) or the Village Board meeting on Monday, Nov. 21^st (time TBD). Or you can email comments or concerns to the Village and DOT at the addresses indicated below. Thanks to all who have already submitted comments in support of Option 4 to the Village.

As always, I’m willing to discuss these issues, and I can be reached at the below email or cell phone number. Hopefully, discussions we have in the Village will ultimately result in our having an even better Lake Drive than we have now.

Alexander "Sandie" Pendleton (414.418.4469; sandiependleton@gmail.com)