Discouraging Reckless Driving in Shorewood (and Elsewhere)

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 poll, 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 would 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. A "noise camera" is an AES that measures and records sounds (in particular, vehicle sounds), and then (when the sound is above a certain level) records an image of the vehicle, and the data collect (sounds and image) are used to issue noise citations to the owner of the vehicle. 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 one specific type of AES system is currently prohibited by a state statute in Wisconsin. Section  349.02(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes provides: “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.) (While speed cameras are not a primary topic of this article, note that § 349.02(3) does not prohibit all types of speed camera systems; specifically, the use of lidar-based speed camera systems to enforce speed limits is not prohibited by § 349.02(3), or any other provision of state law.) Although speed cameras are used in many communities across the United States, apparently because of § 349.02(3), no Wisconsin cities are currently using speed cameras. 

But getting back to noise camera AESs, there is no Wisconsin statute in any way comparable to § 349.02(3) that would prohibit communities from using noise camera AESs to enforce state or local noise regulations. I see no argument that can be legitimately made that Wis. Stat. § 349.02(3) prohibits the use of noise cameras. Obviously, noise camera systems do not use "radar," and noise cameras are not used to determine compliance with motor vehicle speed limits. Some speeding vehicles are violating noise regulations, but not all speed vehicles (think quiet electric vehicles) are violating noise regulations, and even a stationary vehicle can be operated in such a way that it is violating a noise regulation.

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" as 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 emitting 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 to the Village, 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 certain types 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 at least 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 ban them (including Wisconsin, at least to the extent such system use radar, as opposed to lidar). 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. The Village is already using some forms of AESs (an automatic parking enforcement system, and as of January 1, 2024, an “Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) and Notification” system).

We are primarily discussing in this article 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, Capitol & Oakland, 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 it is the case 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., 10:00 pm to 7:00 am).

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 Automated Enforcement Systems in Shorewood (noise cameras, redlight cameras, and--to the extent they are permitted by state law--speed 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.     

Your Next Minivan -- a Cargo Bike?

By Alexander "Sandie" Pendleton

It's simple. The cost of just about everything about owning a car has risen, tailpipe emissions are a leading cause of global warming, and sedentary car-centric lifestyles are a leading cause of many significant health problems. How to fight back? For some families in Shorewood, the answer is “one less car, one more cargo bike.”

What’s a Cargo Bike?

Cargo bikes come in various shapes and sizes, but the three most popular are box bikes, box trikes, and longtail bikes.

Above, a box bike and a box trike.

 

Above, a longtail bike.

There’s much to be said for all three types of cargo bikes, but we’ll talk here primarily about box bikes and box trikes.

Are Box Bikes Easy to Ride?

Box bikes look odd to many Americans. Those who have never ridden one, might believe they are somehow difficult, or even unstable. But they are actually easy to ride and highly stable. Just about everybody who tries one, picks up the knack of it right away. Some prefer box trikes over box bikes, believing box bikes to be more stable when not moving—but modern box bikes have large, easily-deployed double-legged kickstands, which makes them as stable as box trikes, when the double-legged kickstand is deployed. Many find a box bike more manueverable when in motion, than a box trike.

Above, Eric Seeger takes his three children for a spin on Downer Avenue in the Seegers’ cargo trike.

e-Bikes Make It Even Easier

While the gearing on box bikes traditionally made them easy to pedal, the recent rise of electric cargo box bikes has made them usable by just about anyone. You can put hundreds of pounds in the bin of an e-box bike, and almost-effortlessly go up any hill in Shorewood.

How Affordable is a Cargo Bike, Compared to a Car?

Average new car prices reached a record high in the U.S. last year. According to Kelly Blue Book, the average new electric vehicle costs $65,041, the average “luxury” gas-powered vehicle costs $67,050, and the average non-luxury gas-powered vehicle costs $44,584.

Once a family buys a new car, then come the costs to fuel, insure and maintain that car. According to AAA, those costs also reached a record high last year: $10,728 per year (or $894 per month).

In contrast, non-electric cargo bikes start at about $1200 (longtails) or $2100 (box bikes). Electric cargo bikes start at $2000 (e-longtails) or $8,000 (e-box bikes). Yes, there are maintenance, charging (and if you choose) insurance costs related to owning an e-cargo bike, but those are a small fraction of the (on average) $10,728 in annual fuel, insurance and maintenance costs associated with a car. Depending on where you live, you also would need to consider whether you are incurring costs to park a car (and whether you are paying for car parking as a portion of the rent or mortgage payment you are making).

Are Cargo Bikes Good for the Environment?

Using a cargo bike for transportation, even part-time, instead of a car is one thing an individual can do to help reduce global warming, and improve the environment. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, gas-powered vehicles on U.S. roads "release about 1.4 billion tons of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere each year—mostly in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2)—contributing to global climate change.” Amazingly, each gallon of gasoline a Shorewood resident burns “creates 20 pounds of GHG . . . [t]hat's roughly 5 to 9 tons of GHG each year for a typical vehicle.” A whitepaper published by the Portland State University found that cars in the Portland area emit about 55 times as much CO2 per person mile, compared to e-bikes (rates vary city to city, depending on how electricity is generated in the area).   

Think about the carbon footprint associated with manufacturing a car, and getting that new car to your local dealership. Now think about the carbon footprint associated with manufacturing a cargo bike, and getting that cargo bike to your local bike shop. Think about the carbon footprint associated with producing gasoline, and transporting that gasoline every few days to your local gas station. Think about the emissions associated with operating a car, compared to operating a cargo bike or e-bike. Think about the noise pollution in your community created by cars (or motorcycles), compared to that created by bikes (or e-bikes).

One other benefit of cargo bikes to Shorewood is cargo bike owners are more likely to buy their groceries and do other shopping in Shorewood, which is good for local businesses, both large and small.

 

 

Above, a Shorewood box trike filled with “the essentials” from Metro Market, and a Shorewood box trike family gets refreshment and supports another local business. 

Cargo Bikes in Europe

Cargo Bikes are very popular in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. “I visited the Netherlands and Belgium recently and I saw countless families using box bikes to transport their kids—and lots of other stuff—everywhere I went,” says Shorewood resident Dan Boehm. Given how densely populated Shorewood is, commercial cargo bikes could be a solution to all of those double-parked delivery vehicles in Shorewood. “It would be great if companies like Amazon, UPS and FedEx were to instead use commercial cargo bikes to make deliveries in Shorewood, like delivery services are doing in Europe (in the Netherlands and London), and in North American (in NYC, Seattle and Toronto).”  (Highlighted text contains hyperlinks.)

Above, a "bike share” Cargoroo™ box bike in Amsterdam (photo credit, Dan Boehm)

But What If I Need to Move Something Big Someday?

But, you say "I need to own a mini-van, for those rare occasions when I have to move something big." Fortunately, you live in Shorewood, very close to affordable truck rental options.  Home Depot rents trucks (starting at $19 for the first 75 minutes), as does nearby U-Haul on Capitol Drive (in a variety of sizes and price points). Think about it. According to StreetsBlog USA, the average car in the U.S. is only used about an hour a day, which means that second (highly expensive) car you might buy may be sitting unused more than 95% of the time you own it. Is that a good investment of your family's limited resources?

Shorewood Families Using Cargo Bikes

The Seegers in Shorewood bought their box trike over five years ago. According to Hanna Seegers, “We love it and have used it extensively to get around Shorewood with our three children. The front box design lets me see what they’re doing , and it gives my kids a great view of the world around them, much better than from the back seat of a car or minivan.” “And its unusual design really gets noticed by drivers, which is a good thing.” 

“We absolutely loved our longtail cargo bike the seven years we had it, and once our daughter outgrew it, we sold it to another Shorewood family,” said Shorewood resident Katie Gnau. One nice thing about a cargo bike is “it certainly held its value much better than any car we’ve ever owned.” “We used it frequently to get to schools, parks and the store, and even featured it in one of our family Holiday videos.”

For an excellent short video on the many benefits of box bikes--including a demonstration of the much better view of the world that kids have in a box bike compared to a car--see Jason Slaugther's YouTube video by clicking on the following link "The Car-Replacement Bicycle: the Bakfiet." This is something of an aside, but I cannot recommend enough Jason's educational-and-highly-entertaining YouTube Series "Not Just Bikes", for those interested in learning about how we might together make our community more healthy, pleasant and prosperous.

Tax Credits for e-Bikes?

Not currently. But there is an effort in congress to create a $1500 tax credit for e-bike purchases. After being originally introduced in 2021, in March of this year a bill authorizing such a tax credit was re-introduced in the House.

Other Lower-Cost Bike Kid/Cargo Transport Options

There are of course families in Shorewood who like to bike, but who may hesitate at the upfront costs of a dedicated cargo bike, and would prefer a less costly kid-hauling and/or stuff-hauling option. For many families, that option is buying a bike trailer (such as a Burley Bee). Bike trailers can haul two kids plus a few bags of groceries (or no kids and easily a week’s worth of groceries). The cost of a new bike trailer runs from about $200 to $400 (depending on the brand and options), and used trailers can often be found for less on such sites as eBay. (Bike parking at Metro Market is faster and more convenient than car parking, and you get some exercise in the process.) Those who don’t have small kids to haul around, may want to consider adding panniers to their bike, as those can each carry a full bag’s worth of groceries. A set of panniers (with rack) starts at about $70 (and goes up from there, depending on the features and size you want). One of the advantages of a bike trailer over a dedicated cargo bike is that a bike trailer tends to take up less space in a garage, and a bike trailer (which are lighter in weight than a cargo bike) can be easily hung out of the way in the garage rafters, or easily folded-up for storage.

Conclusion

So, is a cargo bike right for your family? It ultimately depends on your individual circumstances, age and number of kids, and needs. But for those looking to save money, reduce their carbon footprint, lead an active lifestyle, and model a green/healthy lifestyle for their kids, a cargo bike may be worth considering as a viable alternative to a traditional car.

Above, two of the Seegers in their box bike at the Lake Front Classic Car Show -- who needs a “muscle car” when you’ve got a “muscle bike”?

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