All articles on Counting Cranes represent my personal views only.

Monday was an interesting day. Slow Boring announced a slate of midterm candidates pragmatic individuals should donate to if they want to sustain Democratic success1. These include candidates running for the House, Senate, state assemblies, and state governor.

For Wisconsin, Yglesias said:

Rodriguez is the sitting lieutenant governor, running in a crowded August primary to succeed the retiring Governor Tony Evers. After almost two decades, Democrats are at the one-yard line of winning back a trifecta, but there’s a real risk they’ll blow it. Rodriguez’s rivals include former Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes and State Representative Francesca Hong. After all the work that has been done to flip control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and get new, fair state legislative maps, Democrats need to nominate their strongest general-election candidate.

On the same day, Rodriguez announced she fired her campaign manager ‘over serious mismanagement’ of this campaign’s finances.

Barnes lost in the 2022 Senate Election (the same night Tony Evers and Sara Rodriguez won), and I can’t waste a vote on someone who can’t win in tougher environments than 2026 will likely be. 2028 lurks on the horizon. Hong is the Democratic Socialist based out of Madison, and as much as I love Madison, I just don’t see a path to making this work like Mamdani in New York City.

New York City is not Wisconsin. We are a purple state that has voted for Trump twice in his three elections. Evers has succeeded, although as a less favorable governor than other “out-of-power” governors where the state assembly is controlled by the other party and the governor’s ability is limited to 1) effective management and 2) vetoes of nonsensical bills2. But Wisconsin Democrats can smell blood in the water after successfully flipping the Wisconsin Supreme Court, breaking a supermajority in the Senate, and leaving the GOP State Assembly captain-less as Robin Vos retires. Some people want to go for broke and get “everything” in one shot.

I don’t. I think we have witnessed enough thermostatic opinion to know that we don’t need massive change. We need durable change. Changes that can outlast single governors or campaigns. If we get this majority, and that’s still an if, we need to prioritize what we accomplish and have patience instead of knee-jerk reactions.

Subscribe now

State politics are important

As a college student in Madison, I went from a disillusioned voter who felt no control over anything to a confident voter with direct access to candidates. The key was forgetting about national politics and diving into the local jurisdictions.

The incredible thing about local elections is that there’s not much the national party brand can do. Local issues are local; while they can share themes, candidates need to take positions that just don’t matter in Washington D.C., New York City, or Lubbock, TX. This is how we can have bleeding-heart liberals starting to question public school financing in Madison.

State politics sit in the middle, but has gravitated towards the national environment as the Trump Administration threatens entire states. We can’t ignore it and I want my governor to protect Wisconsin.

At the same time, I want my governor to focus on Wisconsin.

• Are we potentially going to spend up to $2,000,000,000 on a highway expansion project near Madison? How much will taxes go up because of that?

• Should we consider a constitutional amendment to allow for a Land Value Tax system for municipalities struggling to maintain levies for budgets?

• Why does the Office of the Commissioner of Railroads selectively enforce changing street infrastructure only when cars stop on railroads because of ‘pedestrian crossings’, but not any other railroad intersection where cars stop on the railroads, of their own accord?

• Does coal really need to be our top energy source? And who’s going to pay for the AI Data Center infrastructure bets, the taxpayers or the businesses that stand to profit?

These are my pet projects. I would love to hear a candidate address them3. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

So I can get on board with creating a public option and expanding Medicaid access. These are within the realm of doable, as they have passed in red states. We are significantly behind.

I want to see what utility reform looks like. Housing reform leaves much to be desired, but I like cell phone-free schools. I also know that I don’t speak for the median Wisconsin voter, but Rodriguez did by winning a red state assembly district in 2020.

I certainly don’t want a property tax freeze, as Tom Tiffany suggests, because that would kill local funding for cities. And even though Hong lists so many buzzwords to try and get me on board4, I know that we would blow right through the $2,500,000,000 surplus that all candidates are antsy to spend. Additionally, if Democrats don’t get a full majority the agenda is dead on arrival. States that are bluer than Wisconsin can feel free to try and make this work, showing a model of how “progressive government” can work for the people. But Wisconsin should not be that testing ground, in the case that it’s a failure and it puts another decade of GOP politics in play. There’s a Senate election in 2028 and Ron Johnson needs to be gone ASAP.

I’m giving Sara about a week

This campaign manager firing is going to be in the news cycle for a bit. I think it’s critical for leaders to be accountable and transparent. She seems to be doing that, and you can listen to her press conference on the topic here.

But people opposed to Rodriguez will say this was necessary to release before an upcoming Marquette primary poll and campaign finance deadlines. Without those deadlines, this could have been withheld like Mitch McConnell’s health. Some are suggesting inflated finances forced David Crowley out early and that mismanagement like this could lead to poor executive management as governor. I’m willing to let it slide, knowing that people you trust can mislead or flat-out lie rather than tell an inconvenient truth. But I wonder how many Slow Boring readers scratched their heads this morning reconciling the donation recommendation.

If Rodriguez continues to gain endorsements, I will probably donate to her campaign before the August 11^th primary. I do think she has the best chance. That being said, my mind is open and I would love to hear from other Wisconsinites or pragmatists on where dollars should be flowing.

Leave a comment

This poll is proudly not sponsored by Polymarket

More from Counting Cranes

Former governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey signed some parting legislation a few days before his term ended that included a peculiar e-bike bill. This bill has bike advocates asking a lot of questions (and expressing a lot of frustration). This caught my attention, but what really raised my blood pressure was seeing Will Briggs have a feature story about e-bike, scooter, and e-moto rules in Wisconsin1. From the article I can see that the Wisconsin Bike Fed and other groups are already working towards avoiding a disaster like New Jersey and I hope we can have sensible rules to handle the reasonable complaints from the rise in e-bikes.

What New Jersey Got Wrong

Wisconsin recognizes the three-class system of e-bikes that exists in most of the United States.

The key characteristics of an e-bike are speed, how the motor is engaged, and battery size2. I own a Class 1 e-bike, which means that my electric motor will not assist me unless I’m pedaling. As soon as I hit about 19.6 mph, the motor cuts out, and moving any faster is under my own power. Class 2 has the same 20 mph cutoff point, but users power the motor via a throttle. Class 3 is like my bike but it supports up to 28 mph in pedal-assistance. “Classless” e-bikes are being redefined as “e-motos” to try and offer a distinction between the two types of transportation. There’s a big difference between bikes that move at 20 mph and “bikes” that are really just smaller motorcycles with speeds exceeding 40 mph.

Governor Evers signed a bill in 2019 that added the class system and allowed bicyclists to use e-bikes from classes 1-3 on mixed-use paths. This led to a boom in sales and an increase in ridership.

E-bikes across the country have seen a swell in sales. Shared bike-station trips went from 300,000 in 2010 to over 40,000,000 in 2022. In 2024, the U.S imported 400,000 more e-bikes (1,700,000) than sold electric vehicles (1,300,000). It is a cheaper form of transit (I bought my more expensive e-bike for $3,600) that provide users flexibility for last-mile trips and reduces strain or sweat by doing a lot of the work for you. There’s decent range (over 50 miles using ‘eco’ mode in my experience), you can maintain consistent speed, and cargo bikes or bakfiets can help handle a majority of trips like grocery runs.

Because e-bikes are affordable, convenient, and less strenuous, this surge has put previously unbothered traffic users into new situations. Walkers on bike paths may now see dozens of e-bikes go by them and drivers may come across more bikers on the road. These aren’t necessarily bad outcomes, but in situations where walkers are “buzzed” or collide with bikers, they walk away with bad tastes in their mouths. Drivers continually curse out bikers when they witness traffic violations or experience near misses (even if they are at fault). These mouths can proceed to yell, which gives an opening for New Jersey Democrats to pass new laws.

License and Registration, Please

New Jersey’s S4834 Bill does away with the multi-class system and places all non-human powered two-wheel vehicles under the same “motorized bicycle” restriction. It also requires all motorized bicycle users to:

• Be over 16 years old to operate

• Have a license (either driver’s license or a motorized bicycle license)

• Have a registered motorized bicycle

• Have an insurance policy

It will likely take some time before any data can percolate through on the effects of this bill. But I have two predictions:

1. This will increase the number of residents who passively break the law, without clear expectations on why they are breaking the law, that gives law enforcement opportunities to be punitive, inconsistently

2. Bike sales will decrease as shops explain that e-bikes require a whole lot of paperwork and payments that people probably feel are inappropriate

At this point car drivers might be saying “Finally! Bikes are like cars and it should have always been this way.” The issue is that cars and bikes are not the same thing.

Cars on average weigh 4,000 pounds and require just a bit of work to operate: you have to pass a written exam and driving test3 to legally operate the vehicle and operating the vehicle is as simple as lightly pressing the accelerator. Congrats, you are now a missile. One of the largest disagreements between car drivers and bikers is the “Idaho Stop” where bikes can legally treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. Car drivers believe bikes should operate by the same rules, despite not playing in the same field of physics, because everyone loves to go faster than slow and it’s not ‘fair’ if some people don’t have to stop.

The reason we have stop signs is because two cars colliding at 30 mph is going to cause a lot of damage. That system has over 300,000 joules of energy, whereas two bikes colliding at 15 mph will probably be closer to 8,000 joules4. That is over a 3,500% difference! It’s important that bikes stay aware of cars when roads need to be shared, but the vehicle that will cause damage is going to be the car.

It’s also much simpler for a vehicle to get up to speed, which is the largest factor in damage risk. With a few pounds of force a car can easily get up to speeds of 60 mph in several seconds. Bikes will hit a maximum speed, and it takes a lot of physical exertion over dozens of seconds to reach it.

This is why I don’t understand why e-bikes require a license. It’s a failure of the New Jersey legislature to split up e-bikes and e-motos. Vehicles going 40 mph should be licensed, and reasonable people can disagree if 28 mph should also be licensed. But 15 mph does not need to be licensed, and that is going to be the majority of e-bike cases. Parents might not know what they can buy, or if it will require insurance. Some neighbors or officers may assume a bike is electric and stop kids for no reason. We add additional burdens and costs onto the single most efficient method of transportation the planet has borne witness to, for no good reason.

Who’s the problem?

Representatives of UW Health and the Stoughton Police Department recently started a press blitz on the safety of e-bikes and e-scooters and “rais[ing] awareness about the risks of riding the bikes.” The articles cite statistics like an increase in crashes for e-bikes and e-scooters by 194% and 260%, with a 483% increase in emergency department visits.

The problem is that this is a newer technology, with unreliable reporting metrics. Anything that’s new and not effectively tracked will result in large changes in percentages. The true ED visit numbers they cite? Between April and May, there were 6 visits in 2025 increasing to 35 visits in 2026. There were 143 total crashes for all users in 2025.

In 2024, drivers between the ages 5 and 24 were involved in 135 crashes that killed the driver, 9,000 crashes causing injury to the driver, and over 32,000 crashes causing damage.

I can understand healthcare professionals and officers wanting to chase the shiny object here with multi-hundred percent increases. It’s novel and the end result can be hard to not watch over and over:

This is what my bike looked like after my crash in 2023. I walked away with just a few scrapes.

And beyond the click-baity headlines, UW Health acknowledges that regulation would be difficult and the best course of action is education.

But what worries me is people grasping onto the flashy trends and ignoring how vital bikes can be for children, compared to the real menace causing damage in our communities. I get defensive on this topic because I know kids can ride bikes safely; I biked to school from 5th grade through senior year of high school. An e-bike would have made the 20-minute bike ride to my friends’ houses, my first job, and my soccer practices 20% shorter (or allowed me to bike 20% further than I did).

Would I buy a child a Class 3 e-bike? No. I don’t even think I would buy a Class 1 bike for the 5th grade version of me. But the last thing we need in this age of children being less physically active is to put up barriers on a tool that is one of the most effective social activities for children.

4th of July parades on tricked-out bikes? School commutes to help wake up in the morning? Bikes to the park for games of soccer, basketball, and bike tag? Being able to explore a city before owning a driver’s license? Being able to see your friends across the city even if you don’t have a car? These were all possible because I could bike.

When doctors and officers say something, people listen. I know we can’t say this every time and treat it as news, but 35,000 people die every year from car crashes. It would mean more if UW Health didn’t just lobby Madison for a car-friendly design of Regent Street with no bike facilities. We should be advocating for streets that allow kids to bike safely to places they want to be, building neighborhoods that allow them to easily get to their friends, and making infrastructure that doesn’t require a ton of safety equipment:

Wisconsin state and municipalities should leave the New Jersey legislation alone. While making a dent in e-moto operations, it severs an artery of the biking community. It raises barriers for no reason on a cost-effective, healthy form of transportation. Instead, Wisconsin can focus on making productive bike networks and getting more people off of the dangerous roads.

Share

More from Counting Cranes

I pitched Isthmus on an opinion piece for Regent Street. My side lost handily in a unanimous approval of the presented and preferred street design. Timing didn’t work out, but 800 words is a tight limit and I have thoughts about what should be done next. You can find the original pitch here:

I wrote from the perspective of a teacher who assigns a failing grade on a student’s assignment. The rubric that I’m interpreting and the rubric that Common Council uses to make decisions are the same, but we clearly don’t see the same picture.

I don’t blame the alders for their vote. I understand where the priorities of some communities lie and I acknowledge this is an improvement on the existing area. Objectively, the design could have been safer and objectively they had the prerogative to ask city staff for a safer design. They decided it wasn’t worth it; the compromise that had been formed over months of public surveys, meetings, and commissions gave them a reasonable design that should be approved. I am not an elected official and I don’t have to defend my votes to constituents. It’s easy for me to dream when I’m not on the roll call.

At the same time, I don’t want this to happen again. The flexibility that Complete Green Streets provides for street design is great for staff, commissioners, and alders who understand what outcome they want. The problem is that it is not clear to the public when guidance can be prioritized or dismissed, making objectives murky when we are in the weeds of street geometries but clear when they are announced over press statements.

I have a couple ideas on where we should go from here, ranging from bad to good, and I hope this addendum to my original opinion piece can provide a map and the start of dialogue for providing clarity to the public.

My worst idea: End Vision Zero

My opinion piece focuses on the Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and injuries. Madison clearly has invested into this concept; a Vision Zero Progress Report was in my inbox the morning after the vote. I think we can all agree that people not dying is good public policy. Some cities have gotten close to achieving this, too! It’s not impossible, it just takes a lot of work.

The Regent Street vote showed that there’s a risk tolerance on Common Council, and presumably the public who voted them in, indicating that Vision Zero level work wouldn’t be justified by the City’s other priorities. Safety is good, but not paramount, and therefore we should still prioritize other goals (vehicle congestion, parking, etc.) over reducing safety risks to Vision Zero levels. I still think that most voters prefer alders to vote for safety over convenience, but maybe there’s a spectrum and it’s safety first when it can be completed quietly, on streets that receive less public push back.

If this is the case, maybe we should consider dropping Vision Zero goals? If we can tolerate some risk for safety, that implies we aren’t trying to get to zero deaths or injuries. We are trying to get to *minimal*, but not entirely zero.

This would help provide clarity by showing speakers, like myself, that we aren’t going to prioritize safety in every scenario. Sometimes, level of service is important on a community main street. I can give public comment saying level of service only really matters on highways1, but Common Council can justifiably say “thank you for your comment, but we need to find the best compromise for everyone.” I can advocate for candidates who would prioritize safety, and understand that if that candidate loses, it’s not what the public wants, and I need to go back to persuading people.

My personality at times can be analytical, and this is an analytical answer. It’s not a politician’s answer, which is why this is the worst idea2. “Your alder wants people to die in the streets” is a justified campaign motto during an election if they revoke Vision Zero. Do I think it would be good if we didn’t play Three-Card Monte on when Vision Zero matters? Yes. But that ship sailed when it was voted on by Council.

My better idea: Support Standards with Data

There are three glaring weaknesses with the passed Regent design:

1. 14’ lanes (12’ in ‘feel’ if you read the FAQ) that were requested by Police and Fire for emergency vehicle access despite having no standard or ordinance supporting lanes this wide

2. A “reflecting phase” of the Complete Green Streets guide that adds “on streets with small, local businesses (Main Streets in the street typology; see Section 5), the

   importance of on-street parking is well-recognized and is a high priority” that usurps the existing modal hierarchy

3. The use of overlays to stray away from standard designs of streets of this size (resulting in more turn lanes and smaller curb radii)

There are more, but these are the ones I wanted Common Council to ask questions about and to get staff to provide answers. I hope when I reach out to discuss these opinions that we can have productive conversations about strengthening the data and positions behind them.

For the 14’ lanes, it would be helpful for the Police and Fire Departments to provide data on emergency vehicle access. The hospitals providing comment would also help. The kinds of questions I would like to ask include:

• Which transportation modes cause the most delays for police and fire vehicles?

• Which streets are known to be congested? Do police and fire strategically avoid these streets?

• Are certain vehicles within police and fire fleet more susceptible to being delayed?

• What situations call for larger fleet vehicles? Has the department’s strategy of vehicle deployment changed over the years as the departments confront new challenges?

• When do emergency vehicles need to access different trauma level centers? What’s the base case for an emergency vehicle needing to access Level IV trauma while using their lights?

• What is the foundation of needing 14’ lanes (and 28’ clearance) when traveling in an emergency? Is this a Wisconsin standard? A national standard?

I would ask staff and local businesses for the parking considerations:

• Is parking a priority in survey data of just businesses? Or do the surveys include customers and nearby residents?

• Have we performed a financial analysis3 of the value of on-street parking for Community Main Streets? Is there objective data that can support the need for on-street parking?

• “Loading zones, if needed, should be provided around the corner on intersecting minor streets” did not end up in the final draft. Instead, loading zones are on Regent Street4. When can we deviate from guidance if there isn’t a clear overlay providing a variance?

• Should UberEats/DoorDash be a major concern for Community Main Streets?

• When the Community Main Street section states “parking may be a higher priority”, when is the may a must, as it seemed like it was with Regent? Is it the number of businesses?

And for overlays:

• Do specific overlays have priority over others? For example, when there are transit overlays that state designs should prioritize in-lane stops and truck overlays that cite the need for smaller curb radii, what causes one to be in the plan and the other to not be?

• How many “Community Main Streets” in Madison would take the standard design parameters without a variance? If the answer is zero, why aren’t the overlays part of the standard design parameters?

• How many “Community Main Streets” in Madison are “not common” and require center turn lanes?

• A range of 10,000-25,000 average daily trips is a large range. Should we split the “Community Main Streets” into separate concepts?

• When does NACTO come into play?

We want clarity

The Saturday before the vote I spoke to a room of a few dozen people describing how we might want to approach public comment. We all saw the flaws in the design, but we expected that the status quo was good enough to get support.

I told the room that I was seeking clarity. We were late to the process, joining in on meetings in January when discussions were already solidifying ideas in November. There were even private groups that had been planning their ideal street design for nearly a decade. The best we could hope for was a clear vision on the objectives Common Council sought. With a win, we could move more urgently with trials and small improvements to the network, just as we did with Willy Street. If we lost, more persuading would need to be done on the importance of safety.

What’s clear to me is that Complete Green Streets is a subjective document. My arguments that I made that Tuesday are backed up by the same document that staff used to defend their design. This is a discrepancy. Standards should not have discrepancies. Flexibility helps staff in some areas, but in this case it’s not flexibility with efficiency but flexibility with control. I would really prefer to know in advance whether my argument is meaningful or if it can be swatted away with ease. I don’t think this was directed at me, but some alders implied that citizens were calling staff liars or swindlers5. I don’t believe that, I read the FAQ and I understand where they can justify their design.

An analogous movement currently underway by Madison City Staff is rezoning “Planned Development” zoned parcels. These PD zones were popular a few decades ago because “it gave alders, neighborhood stakeholders, and developers a tool to better control development details.” They are being removed because it adds more work on staff to identify the variances, applies to specific parcels rather than general areas, and reduces transparency. It would be great for these two silos to intersect and compare notes on PD zoning and CGS designs.

I don’t think the Regent Street design prioritizes the right goals. And I think a legal design exists that does. Help me understand why we shouldn’t prioritize my goals for safety so I don’t have to stay up for hours resigned to defeat. With clarity, I can walk away knowing that it was the standard design and we didn’t leave options on the table.

Share

More from Counting Cranes

I pitched Isthmus on an opinion piece for the Regent Street vote. We lost the vote, but it’s still important for people to know what Common Council voted on and why. As we move further away from the decision, we lose context. I still stand by my work so I’m posting it here.

Common Council meetings are normally inconsequential. But sometimes, there are agenda items vital to how the city functions; budgeting is an obvious example where meetings regularly go beyond midnight. Item 94 from the June 9th meeting, the geometry of Regent Street, is one of them.

The meeting featured several speakers, including myself, who were opposed to a specific redesign of Regent Street. There are improvements to Regent Street that I am excited to partake in: wider sidewalks, no confusing peak-hour lanes, and adaptable street space. Alders praised the design for its balance for all users and effective compromise.

Unfortunately, Council did not engage with our feedback. They acknowledged us, expressing “inspiration” in our public engagement. But any questions or discussions directed at us were about bike lanes, missing the point entirely. This redesign was vital to understanding how alders would work to achieve “Vision Zero” when there are difficult decisions to make. Many alders campaigned on prioritizing safety for all users over other considerations, but in their first test on a city-controlled street since Sasha Rosen died over four months ago, they all failed.

Vision Zero is a policy goal to eliminate all traffic fatalities or severe injuries on our streets. This is because “death and injury on city streets is preventable” through better street design. Common Council has adopted this goal and you can see it in press releases, public information meetings, and street design guidance.

It might sound implausible, but several cities have gotten close to realizing this goal. Madison, with a population over 270,000, recorded 39 traffic fatalities between 2023-2025. Vision Zero started in Sweden and was adopted by other Nordic states, where Helsinki (pop. 700,000) recorded 10 deaths in the same period, with no deaths recorded in 2025. Stateside, Hoboken, NJ (pop. 60,000) has not recorded a traffic fatality since 2017 even with their dense street grid.

The political issue with Vision Zero is that reducing deaths means changing the existing street infrastructure. Instead of focusing on reducing vehicle congestion, or making every building convenient and accessible to cars, new designs focus on slowing cars down and making safer intersections. This policy is not for the faint of heart; if you commit to Vision Zero you are committing to frustrating drivers.

I asked Common Council to refer the design because it called for lanes wider than what Complete Green Streets guidance suggests. Narrow lanes save lives by reducing “comfortable” driving speeds. Drivers go slower when they don’t have as much room to maneuver, and the difference between surviving a collision at 20 mph and 30 mph goes from 90% to 50%. There were unnecessary turn lanes that could be eliminated to reduce intersection collisions. Safer infrastructure could be prioritized, per their own planning documents, but staff did not include it.

The geometry that the alders passed unanimously will be set in concrete and asphalt. It will exist for decades and it will cost money to fix it if someone is hurt or dies. The reason it passed is because there are competing interests. Businesses testified that losing parking in front of their building would be destructive, despite many cities showing rejuvenated corridors when parking isn’t prioritized. The hospitals prefer convenient traffic flows for their out of town patients. Fire and Police asked staff for wide lanes to ensure easy vehicle access during emergencies, despite no existing guidance or standard.

The problem here is that these incumbents are used to the status quo. Things work, even if it results in 22 crashes since 2017 and a fatality in 2007. They work because cars can get around, customers don’t complain, and we can build around the congestion vehicles cause. Vision Zero fundamentally asks them to sacrifice this comfort for the greater good.

When alders talk about “compromise” and “balance” with this design, I think they mean “limiting losses”. What can they do to ensure the incumbents of Regent don’t “lose” too much? What improvements can be made, but not so far as to frustrate the people who have existed on Regent for far longer than they’ve been on council?

And that’s the reason I’m severely disappointed in them. I’m trying to “limit the losses” of human life. I have seen intersections like this design that kill people when they try to cross the street. I know that even though congestion slows traffic down during commute hours, the wide lanes remain at night when students could be walking back from an exam. The safety proposals are not misaligned with what the incumbents want, it’s asking cars to slow down and make small adjustments to their commutes. Regent Street can be a safe and thriving street. Council decided that it wasn’t worth the hassle.

My question is, if someone dies, what do we lose?

More from Counting Cranes

AI is going to be what it is. I offer no predictions or explanations of what it will look like in 1, 3, 10, or 100 years. I remember watching Twitch streams in November 2022 with ridiculous, instantaneous songs and interactions generated by ChatGPT. I remember prompting images in Hugging Face and being entertained by the incredible capability to get close to a concept but still being distinctly wrong.

Things have changed. At work, I have access to Claude Code and Codex with few limitations on usage. I have worked with Claude to build a report in two hours that typically required months of back and forth with co-workers and customers. A week later, it recommended making a change that every person in my role is taught on our first day of training never to do. I have seen impressive, stupid, and disappointing in the same prompt. I’m not even that good at using AI. Boosters will probably say “get better at prompts” and opponents will stop reading this article because I have at one point purchased access to AI for personal use. I don’t care; right now my issues are with how the elites of AI are communicating (and not communicating) what’s possible to the masses.

Myopinion

Noah Smith reminded hundreds of thousands this week that Americans can be weird about technology. We will use poorly designed tools like pizza wheels and ignore convenient tools like washlets/bidets. I own both and I get way more questions about the bidet. I don’t think I’ve successfully persuaded any of my friends to get one, but I’m also not that passionate about them.

I’m extremely passionate about local government. Last Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill Tishler, the District 11 Alder in Madison, WI, about the first Strong Towns book. As he puts it, the book club is an incredible excuse to make him read books and also engage on controversial-ish ideas to see how his constituents feel about them. I commend him for putting this together and it was great to talk to a few dozen District 11 residents about Strong Towns.

If you aren’t familiar with the area, the west side of Madison is about as close of a model of the American Experiment as you can get. And “Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity” spends a lot of time criticizing that development model. We were going to have a discussion about a book that I could feel in the room was interpreted as a scolding if you didn’t read the final chapters.

I could talk at these people about how minimum lot reform is necessary in Madison and zoning changes made last year ultimately help the city. I could act as if my research is above their feelings and they need to just “get with the program” and let decisionmakers make their decisions.

But that would be awful persuasion!

Instead, and I hope it was received productively, I spoke about how zoning has affected my life. How I worry about city financials and want to ensure that as someone who moved to the Madison area nine years ago, I can be just as welcoming as the people were for me when I was a student. And if a student decides they want to make this place their home, that it can be a home decades down the road rather than a bankrupt husk of a city. I had productive conversations with people who fundamentally disagree with me on some issues (the value of renters) and found common ground on others (there are few starter homes in Madison and that’s a problem).

Smith’s article felt more like talking at me. Embrace it. It’s beneficial technology. If we don’t use it, we will fall behind. That’s how I feel most boosters talk about the technology and you fundamentally are not going to win people over with that strategy.

Smith did touch on how many Americans are using AI and pointed out the specific group that is a “never engage” cohort. AI is made up of so many different concepts though that I don’t think this is a fair assessment of how Americans feel about and use AI. The LLMs are effective at processing a question that would have taken several Google searches previously. I think this is how most people intentionally interact with “AI” today. But that’s not AI. AI is used in defense systems, medicine, employment—all fundamentally larger parts of people’s lives than search.

If everyday Americans received a comprehensive lesson on Sam Altman’s turn from creating an artificial intelligence company that “benefits all of humanity” with serious safety and financial restrictions to the win at all costs version we see now, would they feel good about the trajectory of AI in the United States? If they understand what Mythos is apparently capable of, would they still support allowing aggressive research?

I cannot comprehend how people are okay with the reality that a CEO specifically set up a corporation with rigid safeguards that came down as soon as the profits could be realized. Especially as these models seemingly have security implications that people previously disregarded but now view as a threat. This for me is the Fauci moment that AI boosters need to grapple with if they want normal people on board.

Don’t lie to people

Many people have criticized how Dr. Fauci and the United States medical establishment handled the initial need for masks in March 2020. This includes Smith. At a time when people were beginning to realize how disruptive the pandemic was going to be, Fauci and pandemic task force leaders did not emphasize the efficacy of masks. They were concerned that if they acknowledged that cloth masks would help reduce transmission, people would jump to the conclusion that better masks (N95s) would reduce transmission further and that would strain resources for healthcare professionals on the front lines.

This spiraled into anti-mask and anti-vaccine sentiment fueling conspiracy theories tarnishing a respected doctor’s reputation and transforming him into one of the most reviled people in the world in certain communities. I don’t live in those communities, but it’s a wound that will remain open for a long time.

I’m not a professional task force communicator; I can’t provide any guidance or clarity on what should or should not have been said. But Smith and other boosters should heed the same advice and critiques they were offering five years ago and be very clear about what artificial intelligence means to them. They shouldn’t lie, and they should call out the liars and obfuscators that are tarnishing their brand.

I sold all my American index fund stock a few weeks ago. I read Matt Levine from time to time to stay partially plugged into the roller-coaster, insanely complex financial system the United States has developed. It is fascinating to read about “the U.S Stock Market will pay $2 for $1 of crypto”, “everything is securities fraud”, and “it’s not gambling, it’s predicting.” But the most recent coverage leading up to the SpaceX IPO was what frustrated me most: “Index Funds Can’t Say No to SpaceX.”

Here’s a company that is being valued on a huge premium of its current revenue (and profit) it can generate. It has a governance score comparable to war-time Russia. Elon Musk will have sole control over the company and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth after the months of attempted intervention in Wisconsin (among many other reasons).

It should not be in indices until it can meet the existing standards of the indices. The S&P 500 stood strong in the face of changing rules for “megacap IPOs”, but others did not. It looks like it would be included in VFTAX—a social, governance, and equity-focused index fund—that should never allow it to be included under the current structure. But someone/some group has persuaded FTSE that leaving SPCX out of their indices is a mistake. Despite the fact that it was going to be public for anyone to purchase directly on the stock market.

It’s hard to not speculate that this is a safety valve promoted by investors and founders that may be in-too-deep and need to offload the hype of AI onto ordinary investors. The counter, that ordinary investors may miss out on the investment of a lifetime, rings false when anyone can access it via public stock. We shouldn’t be forcing 401(k)s and pension funds to take stakes in these companies for no reason other than speculation. The index fund movement was specifically advertised to people as a way to make average returns in the long term. It’s lower risk, with lower fees, and these companies are trying to upend it because a lot of capital exists in these financial pools.

Separately, these models are getting scary. IF the capabilities of Mythos, GPT-5.6, and whatever other models that come out in the next year are credible, there’s a non-zero chance that things break immeasurably and for a long time. No one trusts this administration to handle serious issues, let alone a full-on catastrophe. That means it’s going to be up to the people who are developing the frontier models, or know the people developing them, to speak up and tell the truth.

Jockeying hurts everyone

This isn’t a cerebral take or anything, it’s from the view of someone who can read headlines and read articles that provide some transparency into where AI is currently at and has no control over the massive potential car wreck beginning to form.

There are two sets of AI believers:

1. Investors banking on the returns necessary for the largest run-up in capital expenditures the world has ever seen that AI is requiring

2. Users who are trying to find applications for AI that will transform the world

These can crossover. Altman is clearly in both camps. Some people care more about the money and some care more about the applications.

Each case has positive and negative externalities. Investors have sunk over a trillion dollars into the R&D and infrastructure needed to generate the compute frontier models use to be productive. Productive applications can mean “cure cancer” or “develop bioweapons”. If either one of these ends poorly (we overinvest significantly; we develop something that causes a mass extinction), there are serious consequences.

But clearly there’s one that’s way worse.

And it seems like the investors, who are risking a lot of money, are guiding decision making instead of the users who are realizing that these models could cause serious damage. Right now is the “Fauci mask” moment. Are we going to take a risk, and let the investors try to make a lot of money (or save their failing/mistimed bet), even though serious problems could happen at any moment? Or are we going to be honest, get serious about the consequences, and ensure people are preparing for what’s next?

It won’t take Armageddon for society to completely turn on the technology. If hackers use it to break critical infrastructure systems (hospitals, water, payment processing) for a temporary amount of time, there will be chaos and outrage. ‘No more data centers!’, but faster.

But at that point it’s too late. The cat’s out of the bag and malicious actors have the models they need to continue to cause damage. We then get an awful incentive where “we need the AI to beat the bad guys” becomes the reason to continue pursuing aggressive research.

Boosters: is this more likely to be harnessed as a weapon than a cure? Do we need to slow down research, get a better process in place, and understand what we are creating? Speak now and speak the truth. The world will soon be watching.

Hi,

My name is Josh Olson, I'm a former resident of the Regent Street area. As a student, I never considered walking on Regent because the cars were erratic and the sidewalks were too narrow.

This design is an improvement on what exists now, but it has more potential. That potential is outlined in multiple planning documents and guidelines: Complete Green Streets, Vision Zero, NACTO, and All Ages and Abilities. We could achieve this potential now if City Staff designed the street like the guides suggest we should. Staff went a different route, which is why I'm here tonight.

I'm also a Strong Towns member, where we think streets should be safe and productive. That means narrow, open for business, and prioritizing people more than cars. The founder of Strong Towns recently noted that staff do not make decisions, they advise elected officials on the consequences of decisions the officials make. That means you are responsible for this street geometry. I think there are serious consequences for approving this design as it stands and council should grapple with them.

Sasha Rosen died 4 months ago when a car sped down S Park Street. Another victim died last week from a speeding car on E Washington. Three others have been killed on our streets this year, and an unnamed victim died three years ago when a truck went right on red on Raymond Road.

Speed kills, but it's not the only factor. It's our responsibility to narrow lanes as much as we can, even when streets aren't known for speeding. It's also our responsibility to reduce risks for non-speeding crashes, like turns into intersections. My friend has nearly been hit twice in the last week by reckless vehicles turning right onto Fish Hatch. This is the same intersection he was hit at two years ago. He still goes to physical therapy. We encourage collisions with the current design of a slip lane turn onto Park Street and the problem won't go away until it's fixed.

Alders, many of you have stated safety should be prioritized over vehicle throughput. There are improved aspects to this design, but in my opinion it started from a point of prioritizing vehicles. Staff were acutely aware of "level of service" issues, but not about pedestrian crossing times. Staff stated an appropriate outcome would be longer signal times that discourage pedestrians from going to a more chaotic intersection. This intersection has dense student housing, where walking should be easy. The initial designs also favored wider lanes for vehicle access. This is a core street in the core of the city. If cars are prioritized here, we will not have a safe or productive area. If this design started with safety as the priority, I think these design elements would not have been here at all.

If we want to be a Vision Zero city, it starts with the streets that we own. Even the tough decisions, where incumbents may have to change their routines. But I think reducing the risk for loss of life is more important than entities avoiding desired change. Residents have stated their support for Vision Zero through their votes and through city surveys. I hope you all do as well.

Vote no, refer this back to Transportation Commission, and explicitly ask for a safety first design with documented variances from the current proposal. Thank you.

I was severely disappointed in Common Council last night. Several public commenters referenced a “strong contingent of speakers who want bike infrastructure” but the majority of the opposition cited pedestrian safety as the primary reason to reject the design and refer it back to Transportation Commission. Alders, via their questions and their discussion, similarly based their defense on the idea of unnecessary bike lanes, the necessity of compromise, and the idea that this was good balance that works for all users. They planted their flag in the idea of an unreasonable opposition1, and approving the design was the only sensible outcome. They did not “grapple,” as I put it; they relied on talking points against an imagined opposition.

My questions were left (mostly) unanswered. There was no explanation or justification why we need an additional right turn lane onto Park Street beyond avoiding congestion and back-ups. Staff said they could not accommodate 11’ lanes, a NACTO standard, because turning radii for trucks dictate corner infrastructure and 12’ was the minimum necessary. I don't know how the rest of the country is able to do 10’ or 11’ lanes that we deem impossible. No one asked.

What's missed, because Common Council was looking for expedience, is that we haven't entirely reduced the preventable risk to pedestrians. Several alders discussed how their commutes are usually congested and therefore people can't speed. Staff noted that mid-block crossings, where the street infrastructure will be narrowest, shouldn’t see many people crossing because there are safer crossings close by.

These are comments made by those who don't live near there or acknowledge that late nights on Regent exist. Who aren't anticipating drunk college students crossing whenever and wherever. They haven’t internalized the inevitability of empty streets left over when there's no traffic. Designing for the majority case makes sense but not acknowledging what's left when the streets are empty is a critical miss. Sasha Rosen was killed by excessive speeding. So was the victim last week. That's only possible in a non-congested environment, demonstrating that these fatalities can happen outside of “ideal circumstances”. Making a built environment where that's possible is something we need to acknowledge, and I don't recall anyone highlighting that risk.

The reason I can say that with confidence is because Vision Zero was not mentioned once during alder questions or discussion. This is my main issue and I feel like it's malpractice. I can understand that compromise would be necessary for any design. It's also not a terrible design; it was a decent enough start that I think had some roots found in our successful Willy Street experiment. I supported it out of the gate at our monthly Strong Towns meeting, and I was one of the people suggesting we don't fight for the bike lanes and instead take staff at their word they would improve the N-S connections.

But fellow members revealed inconsistencies between the plan and documented guidance. They highlighted the wider lanes, the extra turn lanes, and the missing medians. If Vision Zero, the goal of reducing all traffic fatalities to zero, were the driving force for this design we would have seen a different design.

The design made compromises to the pedestrian experience after feedback from Transportation Commission. But this is almost always too late. Tom Mohr, the project lead for city staff, didn't like how people like me were characterizing this as “staff’s design”. It was a “collaborative process” with the Transportation Commission, the Board of Public Works, key stakeholders, and the public.

But I don't control the draft papers. Mohr and staff submit the design to these commissions, and they anchor what can be accomplished. By starting the design as prioritizing vehicle “level of service” first, and whittling down to get a better pedestrian experience, we end up where we are. Mohr said that they can't be expected to draft every concept, and I agree. That's a waste of resources. But if they had anchored on a safety-first design, one explicitly allowed by Complete Green Streets (because CGS is subjective and allows for weighing tradeoffs2), we could have started with a safer proposal and added necessary infrastructure for a minimum viable product for vehicles. Instead, pedestrians will have to deal with busy signalized intersections with unnecessary turn lanes. Staff think this is acceptable, because signalized means “orderly”, but as I said in my public comment, my friend has been hit and continues to see near misses at a nearly identical signalized intersection on Fish Hatchery. This is orderly only insofar as each action a person and vehicle should take in an ideal model. It's not reality, and we know that.

My last article highlighted how many alders ran on safety for their campaigns. Many explicitly stated they would prioritize safety over vehicle throughput. I know that the business of the city needs to be conducted and that this design needs to move forward. I am severely disappointed this was unanimous.

Not one alder thought this would be worth a review of the wide lanes or the turn lanes? To get Fire and Police officially on the record for 14’ lanes? Just to confirm that there's nothing else we can do?

Vision Zero will require sacrifices to achieve the goal of zero deaths. Regent Street was the first test: a street with business, employer, and commuter interest where sticking to the status quo was the highly preferred option. It was also entirely within the city’s jurisdiction, unlike E Washington or S Park St. A better pedestrian experience was necessary; the design should have started with a safety-first proposal and built up to stakeholder needs from there. This would follow how most alders indicated we should act during their campaigns.

Instead, incumbents dictated the process, we followed the status quo, and we allowed for updates to the pedestrian experience when it was convenient. Now, we risk sacrificing something else, and I hope we never, ever have to read the headline.

Share

Two lanes. 10 feet each. That is all Regent Street needs to be a successful street in Madison.

This is my thesis and I need to state it clearly at the beginning. Engineers, business owners, and drivers will say that this is a complicated area. It’s been nearly a year since Madison City Staff began discussing improvements to Regent Street. There’s been months of planning, engaging, reviewing, and discussing a little less than half a mile of road.

They say it’s complicated because there are 12,000 people located in the census tracts just north and south of Regent. Hundreds, if not thousands of UW-Madison students walk to classes each semester from these neighborhoods. Local businesses—bars, restaurants, bike shops, bakeries, book stores, and more—reside on the designated “community main street” where people spend time and money. Hospitals are just around the corner and Camp Randall looms in the distance. WisDOT estimates over 17,000 vehicles drive through Regent Street each day. These are all parts of a complicated system with their own needs and their own priorities that takes an adept city planner to balance effectively.

They say it’s complicated, but not complex1; as long as you understand the models and the formulas, you can plan an effective street. Complexity implies a level of adaptability that cannot be predicted. They will say that the street is defined and there is no possible evolution except the one that exists on the preferred design option.

The preferred design option features two lanes with additional left turn lanes at intersections. At its widest, the lanes will be 14 feet wide2. This is a reduction from four lanes (two general lanes and two peak-hour lanes). There will be expanded sidewalks (from 5 feet to 9 feet). There will be no bike lanes. There will be parking.

Streets are not complicated, they are complex

I don’t agree with the engineers on this project. Clearly, a lot of people also disagree because the Legistar document is drowning in links to public comment.

I tend to disagree with the engineers in general. When I conducted a Crash Analysis Studio at Prairie and Raymond two years ago, I walked the site with staff. They removed an improperly planted tree, trimmed some foliage covering street lights, and added an unenforceable “no turn on red” sign. These were the easy steps to take for a “complicated” area that features a truck route, bus route, and 11,000 vehicles per day. The hard step of experimenting with removing a right turn slip-lane, even for a few hours, was a step too far even after a tragedy.

When my friends advocated for removing peak-hour lanes following the third crash into the same coffee shop on Willy Street, staff said it would be a poor use of resources. Other areas in Madison are a higher priority on the Safe Streets list of projects; do we want to redirect staff time and funding to something staff didn’t believe would make a significant difference?

Streets are complex because humans adapt. When you remove peak-hour lanes, which prevent cars from flying 40+ mph in the lane closest to the sidewalk, people will tell you they feel safer. It will show that the models are wrong and you can’t predict every detail definitively. The best thing we can do is allow streets to grow naturally and adapt as needed. Small things like paint, planters, and bumps will cause drivers to slow down. People will reclaim the space and more people will want to be in the area. We cannot predict exactly how or when it will happen, but it will occur if allowed and nourished.

It puts a stake into the heart of “complicated” and removes the guise of balancing needs. There has been a preference, for decades, to build streets like they are roads and to prioritize vehicles moving on them. Any potential change is a threat to the order that needs to be maintained. This is how Regent Street is currently designed. It is wide, it is straight, and you can go fast. Level of service should be high and cars should not have to wait. There is no environment that will allow the street to flourish; it is artificially stunted.

When trials reveal that streets that resemble Regent can be made safer, it puts the onus on staff to reveal their design preferences directly. Do we design for safe? Do we design for pleasant? Do we design for convenient? Why can’t we try new things?

Vision Zero Goals

When I consider voting for elected officials, I look for safety track records. I want to see candidates who acknowledge that the 40,000 people who die in car crashes each year are dying because of poorly designed infrastructure. The 8,000 pedestrians who die are not to blame for failing to wear bright clothing, to look both ways, to push a button, or to carry a flag. They do not deflect responsibility on to anything but the environment that allows the people behind the wheel to cause their damage.

I am lucky to live in a city that recognizes Vision Zero as a desirable policy outcome. Zero deaths on roads, bikeways, or sidewalks. It is admirable and important. Madison has Vision Zero policies because the mayor and a majority of Common Council (I count at least twelve) have indicated to voters that they prioritize Vision Zero as a policy. The Madison Bikes candidate questionnaire asks candidates if they would commit to implementing Vision Zero policies even at the expense of removing car parking or general travel lanes. The most recent survey explicitly asked candidates to rank four different priorities, where eight of ten alders up for election last spring placed “ensuring a safe environment for all road users” as the top priority and “moving vehicles fastest” at the bottom.

We (Strong Towns Madison helps design the questionnaire) ask these questions because we know they are defensible, but at times, unpopular opinions. Businesses will say that on-street parking is the lifeblood of their business. Opponents claim the “bike mafia” are getting too many projects, and “they don’t even pay for roads like I do!” because of the wheel tax. The thought of losing 60 seconds on their commute because they missed a light cycle will cause the collapse of society.

We ask these questions because our children, siblings, parents, cousins, friends, co-workers, and neighbors die on our streets. Nearly four months ago Sasha Rosen was killed by a vehicle allegedly driving 62 mph. I clench my fists reading his mother’s letter to the drivers of Park Street. Alders recognize the tragedy and hope we can learn and prevent this from happening again.

203 people have died in Dane County since 2021. We cannot learn this lesson fast enough. I think of Derrick Allen, Lucy Kitzerow, and Derek Schwarting. We have solutions, and we can implement them to prevent tragedies, it’s just a question of if elected officials will stand up for them.

Regent for the people

There isn’t a more apt name for this street. A person appointed to govern because the legitimate ruler is a minor, ill, or otherwise unable to rule. We have our “regents” of Regent Street who vastly prefer the status quo to the kind of place Regent could evolve to be. The engineers who follow outdated guidelines, the employers and businesses who need every available parking space so commuters don’t have to walk a block or pay to park their vehicle for several hours a day, and the drivers who want their commute to be easy and avoid congestion (in the middle of the City no less!); they rule over this process and claim that there can be no other way. For the masses, 4 feet more of sidewalk! It’s all that can be spared.

If we designed this with the people in mind, we would listen to their preferences. Safety above all else.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health studied lane widths across seven cities in several states. They found that narrow lanes save lives. Crash reductions are significant when reducing streets from 12 foot lane widths to 9 feet. The conventional wisdom of “larger lanes are safer” is wrong. The goal that cities and states should aim for, especially in urban contexts, is to narrow lanes as much as possible (10 feet)3. When engineers want to go wider, they need to justify that decision. NACTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, also agrees with this guidance. Notably, the City of Madison agrees with it too! The Complete Green Streets guidance calls for 10 foot lanes on “Community Main Streets”:

Elected officials were voted in because they prefer safety over convenience. They want to reduce deaths to zero. They are interested in making dynamic places where people want to be rather than subsidizing parking lots.

Staff have shown a desire to ease vehicle access. They can tell you how long cars will have to wait at an intersection, but not how long people will need to wait to get a safe crossing. They claim lanes need to be wide for 5 ambulance trips a day4, but not narrow to reduce the 22 injuries that have occurred to pedestrians and bikers since 2017 for the vast majority of the remaining time (more than 99%).

There’s a miscommunication here. In the words of Chuck Marohn:

It is now Madison Common Council’s time to ask staff to help them understand the Regent Street redesign.

1. Is this design truly prioritizing safety like Complete Green Streets and Vision Zero would have us do?

2. What would a “safety first” redesign look like? What amenities could we add to Regent with the extra space?

3. Why are 14 foot lanes required for a Community Main Street? When designing with 14 foot lanes, are we designing for the majority of uses, or for small, niche uses?

4. Streets are a liability, the people and places around them are the assets and investments we want to promote. Have we conducted a financial analysis on the return on investment needed for a road that prioritizes vehicle passage (property damage, reduced business, less housing) compared to a street that prioritizes safety and people (improved property values, better community spaces, more business opportunity)?

I hope alders will prioritize safety over vehicle convenience. I hope they can see that wide lanes will cause more damage. Approving the design as is would be admitting to not prioritizing safety, which for some would break promises made during campaigns.

There is no excuse this time. Regent Street is not under state jurisdiction. Common Council is in control of what this design looks like and every guide and handbook is telling them they can make it safe.

Two lanes. 10 feet each. That is all Regent Street needs to be a successful street in Madison.

Addendum:

I’m adding previous alder statements on safety to this article.

Sasha Rosen Comments:

Evers: “Like many of you, I have been deeply moved by the death of Alexander "Sasha" Rosen”; “In 2020, Mayor Satya and Common Council embraced the Vision Zero concept for Madison… however, Thursday's loss was a sobering reminder that our work is far from being done.”; “In light of this terrible tragedy, it’s clear that we have more work to do”

From previous campaigns:

From Madison Bikes 2026 Questionnaire

Ranking designs of streets:

A: Moving vehicles fastest

B: Ensuring safe environment for all road users

C: Investing wisely in financially prudent infrastructure commitments

D: Moving the greatest number of people

Ochowicz: B, C, D, A

Verveer: B, C, D, A

Mayer: B, C, D, A

Zhang: B, C, D, A

Figueroa Cole: B, C, D, A

Matthews: B, D, C, A

Lieberman: B, D, C, A

Glenn: B, D, C, A

Quotes from explanations:

Ochowicz: “safety is the number one priority”

Verveer: “I’m deeply committed to achieving Vision Zero”; “I would prioritize safety design improvements on streets where high traffic volumes and speeds contribute to significant risk”; “to achieve Vision Zero, we need to continue expanding protected bike lanes, improve crosswalk visibility, lower speed limits in high-risk areas, and design roadways the prioritize safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike”

Mayer: “getting cars from point A to point B used to be the highest priority, but we no longer pursue that, instead placing importance on pedestrian safety and quality of life in surrounding areas”

Zhang: “[Sasha Rosen’s death shows] exactly what happens when safety isn’t prioritized”; [in reference to Regent] “this is a great opportunity to prioritize alternative modes of transit and safety”; “putting in better pedestrians crossings or protected bike lanes not only keeps people safe, but makes driving less stressful”

Figueroa Cole: “safety comes first, full stop, and that is reflected in both the Complete Green Streets Policy and our Vision Zero commitment here in Madison”; “a street that moves cars quickly but costs someone their life has failed”

Matthews: “safety is my highest priority and I hear that concern from constituents as well”

Lieberman: “safety has to be the number one thing”; “we saw the sheer heartache and grief that can come from unsafe road design”

Glenn: “we should be pushing for safety and repairs rather than more capacity”; “ensuring a safe road environment for all road users is my absolute top priority”; “no one should risk their life just to cross the street for a bus stop”; “prioritizing ‘speed’ usually comes at the direct expense of safety and local business vitality”

From Madison Bikes 2025 Questionnaire

“Madison adopted CGS policy that prioritizes walking, biking, transit, and green infrastructure over driving and parking… are you committed to supporting the implementation of this policy in your district and the city, especially when the project requires the removal of car parking or general travel lanes?”

Ochowicz: Yes

Field: Yes

Verveer: Yes

Vidaver: Yes, where possible. Need to balance community needs

Mayer: Yes?

Lankella: Yes

Figueroa Cole: Yes

Lieberman: Yes

O’Brien: Yes

Glenn: Yes?

Guequierre: Yes

Madison Bikes 2023 Questionnaire

“Madison recently adopted CGS policy… are you committed to implementing this policy?”

(same question as above, I added alders who hadn’t responded in later elections)

Duncan: Yes

Tishler: Yes

I started paying attention to local government as a college student. I was tired of how little control I had over national politics and I realized that local government was more accessible than I thought. With COVID wreaking havoc on local businesses, I subscribed to the Wisconsin State Journal and began to read up on the city I hoped to make a permanent home after graduation.

I was spurred into action after reading about a historic preservation claim over The Wonder Bar, a supper club with a 1920’s aesthetic. The owner sought an exit from the business and by virtue of the nearby neighborhood being in an appealing area, they wanted to close the restaurant and sell to a developer. The developer proposed building an eighteen-story apartment complex just down the road from the Capitol and downtown. This story is not a focus on that debate of preservation and development, but instead a glimpse into the system of how we make progress in city government.

As a newcomer to local governance, I would have sent a comment to Plan Commission in support of the project. But I didn’t know that process yet. As a graduating student, I was looking at rent increases throughout my four years and I was worried about rents continuing to rise. Madison was a growing city and continues to grow, which heightens the need to meet housing demand. I also believe that infill housing projects in areas where people want to live is better for residents and less costly for the City than sprawling to new land. Taking an underused restaurant, bar, and parking lot and putting up hundreds of units was a huge win for the City. This would be at the expense of neighbors who didn’t want the traffic and new tenants and the preservationists who felt like they would lose something historic.

Despite housing goals and a desire from the land owner to sell and the developer to build, the permits were denied. The building needed to be preserved if development were to go forward. This huge cost has left the site undeveloped, even after multiple attempts to scale down the project, and it is covered with graffiti and plywood as it atrophies away. This is the result of ordinances dictating what can be done in the face of the plans we adopt that say what we should do.

There are so many plans

Common Council will receive a set of draft transportation related plans to adopt later this summer: the Pedestrian Plan and the All Ages and Abilities (Bike) Plan. These documents cover goals that the City hopes to accomplish on the scale of decades. The last pedestrian plan passed in 1997, if that gives you a sense of how long these cover.

There are many aspirations:

With the current mayoral administration and council covering this general sentiment in Madison, it makes sense to prioritize these!

How many of these priorities are implemented? How are they implemented? What goals or objective achievements can we point to and say “we will get this done by 20XX and it will be through this law”?

Very few. And the reason is that these plans are not legally binding. It gives the City direction, which is important. City Staff should understand what it should be working on and how it might achieve it. It also gives the City flexibility; things can change rapidly (a recession, a new technology) and legally requiring changes with deadlines can be dicey.

My concern arises when departments either:

1. Write goals that are in active conflict with other departments, with no means of reconciling differences in approach

2. Have no means to enforce or implement goals when the time is right

It’s important to remember that City Staff is an entity of diligent workers who aren’t (necessarily) aligned or incentivized by the same standards. They all must follow existing ordinances and they all must report to the Mayor. But often, there are different objectives and ways of thinking that reveal the flaws in plans as they are adopted. In writing this piece, I am asking:

1. Who are these plans for?

2. Are these plans going to accomplish what they set out to do?

Conflict and Incentives

The most apparent conflict between departments for me is the authors of the Complete Green Streets Guide (CGS) and the Traffic Engineering department (which may be the same people!1). Earlier this year I wrote about the reconstruction of Regent Street. This is a corridor of small businesses and a hospital complex located near dense student housing and a well-established Vilas neighborhood. It’s also one of the few East-West streets near downtown and is often used by commuters who don’t live in the area.

Our successful lane removal trial for Willy Street posed the following question for traffic engineers: do we need peak-hour lanes for Regent? If Willy revealed we didn’t, can we reduce a four-lane intersection down to two in an area where hundreds (if not thousands) of students cross each day to get to classes?

The initial answer was yes, we can. The “preferred option” put an emphasis on pedestrian comfort and safety, expanding really uncomfortable sidewalk widths from 5 feet to 9 feet. This is a win and I’m happy that City Staff quickly adopted the results from Willy into a needed infrastructure upgrade project. Walking along Regent Street as a student was always uncomfortable. Making things walkable will likely increase foot traffic and make the local businesses more appealing too.

From here though, we can see where different mandates and incentives diverge. There was prominent discussion of a 28 foot clearance width for traffic at a Transportation Commission meeting. It was later revealed that this stems from the Madison Fire Department’s request to be able to easily maneuver through traffic (caused by vehicles) and have enough room to deploy all equipment from fire truck engines during an emergency. Meriter Hospital (a Level II trauma hospital) is also located nearby and representatives emphasized the need for ambulances to have easy access through the corridor. City Staff deferred to these requests and built large intersections with only a limited reduction in parking and loading spaces (what the lanes were when peak-hour lanes were not in *effect*). Outside of safety concerns, most businesses also expressed concerns with losing parking and loading access, so this likely informed some decisions as well.

The problem is, these recommendations are in conflict with CGS! There’s a modal hierarchy that puts pedestrians first, then transit, then bicyclists, then vehicles, and finally parking. The plan as is offers compromises to pedestrians when convenient for vehicles, but no sacrifices as would be required. The hierarchy is vehicles first, parking, then pedestrians (with lowly bikers at the bottom). At the most recent Transportation Commission, Tom Mohr (who is representing the City at these meetings) is able to answer clearly when vehicles will be impeded but is unable to answer questions about how pedestrians will be impacted. These should be swapped!

In an ideal CGS street, this business and housing corridor would be built out so people could safely live, work, and shop with ease. That includes larger sidewalks, but also mandates safer intersections for crossing. Crosswalk widths would be closer to 20 feet rather than *28 feet* and there would be infrastructure to protect pedestrians and slow down vehicles. It would also look towards adding bicycle infrastructure (as a higher priority mode in the hierarchy). Bike infrastructure was shot down because it put vehicle throughput at risk. Commuters wouldn’t be able to get through without waiting for lights. Large fire trucks and ambulances wouldn’t be guaranteed to get through congestion caused by vehicles. Businesses wouldn’t guarantee that their customers or employees would have cheap (meaning “free”), available, close parking at all times. Regent Street is designated as a “Community Main Street” per CGS, and yet many of the priorities are outright overruled:

What’s the purpose of CGS if City Staff can develop streets and not consider it? Is it to solely appease citizens who think that pedestrian safety is a more important and higher risk than fires in our advanced world of fire risk prevention2? To calm the “bike mafia” who want serious implementation of safe bike infrastructure rather than “sharrows”?

Is it to try and provide a lodestar for staff, but in reality allows them to pick and choose when there’s an opportunity to use the standards and conveniently ignore them when there might be political hay from drivers that don’t want to be slowed down in a people-focused area?

Ah, but here’s the bait and switch! Staff did consider the guide, as Mohr explains at a Board of Public Works meeting (34:25-42:00) on a Wednesday night (4/22/26)3. CGS has overlay districts and those allow staff to consider parking as a higher priority. In fact, Regent is one of the small business districts where parking has been considered a higher priority in the past!

This is despite community surveys returning “parking” as the least important priority for this specific project, but that’s the point of these documents. Staff want flexibility (which is normally good), and in this case they are ignoring statements like “bike lanes should be included and may require consideration of parking options on side streets or in structured parking” because the qualifier is should and not shall or must which do appear in CGS. In the end, the guide exists to help weigh tradeoffs and make decisions amidst competing priorities. Mohr decided that a (limited4) better pedestrian experience and adequate delivery and parking for business was more important than bike lanes.

Plans shouldn’t be built this way if there’s no enforcement mechanism. We shouldn’t put in the hundreds of hours of staff time to write, deliberate, listen to feedback, and rewrite these ideas if they solely exist to be on the shelf when someone cares to reference it. When the City commonly refers to the modal hierarchy in most planning documents, and yet we have qualifiers and footnotes that limit its applicability, that’s a plan that’s failing to serve residents. It is saying one thing that most people agree with and allowing loopholes when fewer people are watching.

There’s clearly an understood reference for designing these streets that the Streets Engineering departments uses and we should be reviewing that for improvements rather than developing a “break-if-convenient” set of ideas.

Ordinances, Ordinances, Ordinances

Thankfully we do have that. It’s the written laws of our City. They exist in the code of general ordinances and a few additional documents like the Comprehensive Plan and federal legislation like the ADA. When push comes to shove, these are the guidelines staff needs to follow. It’s the law!

The Pedestrian Plan highlights the need to build more housing options that make areas accessible for residents. In my mind, one of the easiest ways to do this is to allow more housing in areas that are pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian friendly means sidewalks, safe and short crossings, infrastructure that slows vehicles, and places you can walk to (schools, places of worship, shops, restaurants, workplaces). These all relate to the physical world: you put in sidewalks, you add bump-outs to shorten crosswalks, you put in medians or roundabouts to slow vehicles, and you make it possible to build buildings close together.

Within this plan, the options to increase map walk-ability with housing are as follows:

1. Evaluation of sidewalks for reconstruction and resurfacing

2. Requiring sidewalk design to adhere to the Complete Green Streets Guide

3. Include sidewalks on both sides of all streets (and add missing sidewalks as part of street projects)

4. Encouraging (not requiring) Area Plans to adopt pedestrian-friendly development and land use patterns that build a better pedestrian network

5. Require developers of new subdivisions to install sidewalks or other facilities at a subdivision’s perimeter

This is an important mindset, but it doesn’t prescribe a fix. There’s nothing beyond, “we should build more housing that’s convenient for walking.” How do we do that?

In my mind, you could lower lot minimum requirements (area and width, but also setbacks), so you can build more homes or businesses in a location. If you require 50 feet of lot width and 30 foot setbacks for a single family home in SR-C1 zoning, you can get 12 primary home facades per city block (average block width is 660 feet). If you instead use TR-VR2 rules and reduce this to 10 feet among other changes, you can increase the number of homes by nearly 300% (44 homes). And that’s trying to maximize the space, there’s a large threshold between 12 and 44 homes, but you need to allow people to explore that gap. It doesn’t require that the homes be bulldozed and redeveloped to those standards the next day. It provides options for owners or entrepreneurs in the future.

Madison has a housing goal of building 15,000 homes by December 31st, 2029. It’s an ambitious goal of 3,000 homes per year. There are large apartment complexes to help take on the brunt of this work, but not everyone wants to rent in Madison. There are families that are looking to have options near schools. And seniors who want to downsize from their multi-bedroom homes (and cash out a nice return on their investment) while remaining in their neighborhoods. Unless we want to play “pull up the ladder”/musical chairs and force some people to move out of Madison5, we need the legal capability to build infill housing. That started with ADU reforms and making duplexes by-right. But it can’t stop there. We will need starter homes for new families who don’t have a ton of capital to buy $500,000 homes. We will need smaller homes for seniors who are not as mobile. These smaller, inexpensive homes cannot physically be built because they are illegal in the most common zones in Madison. This is the first of the three-legged housing stool that should be fixed (the other two are finance and labor capability that can develop once you allow for the newer construction types).

Reducing lot minimums from 6,000 sqft to 2,500 sqft is a tried and true policy win in states and cities across the political spectrum. It won’t solve the housing crisis tomorrow, but it will give us more options. If we only allow this for specific zones, we make this a political process where the loudest and most resourceful communities say no and the remaining see it adopted. This should be a solution across the City. Failing to adopt this as law, but continuing to praise it in plans, is a failure for Madisonians.

We need progress

Housing Forward last year worked because we revised the ordinances that limited duplex and ADU construction. We will need the other arms of housing construction to help get these built, but now we can say there’s no legal limit to these buildings.

Plans like the AAA and the Pedestrian Plan are helpful in concept, but harmful in practice. They provide the City cover for discussing desired reform without implementing ways to achieve it. We don’t need “red meat” to appease residents, we need ways to accomplish their concerns.

I would like to see Common Council flex their muscles on this. I think City Staff is commendable for writing these plans, but we should be debating how to get these enforced via ordinances or the Comprehensive Plan. When these come to Council for approval, we should be asking how staff imagines the goals will be implemented.

1. What ordinances do you propose revising to accomplish the plans goals? Should these be revised now or in the future (depending on specific changes or future plans)?

2. Are any existing ordinances in conflict with the proposed goals? If so, what are they?

3. Have all departments signed off on the goals listed? If a department disagrees with any stated goals, what were their reservations and how will these be mended (through ordinances)?

And if Staff cannot answer these, don’t approve the plan. The plans should be actionable, even if Council votes them down. Otherwise, we waste valuable time and resources for things that will just gather dust.

More from Counting Cranes

Vote for Madison

On Monday I had the honor of joining West Allis’ reps for the Strongest Town Contest Championship Stream. It was a live stream where Norm from Strong Towns asked us questions about why we nominated our cities, what makes us “strong”, and why voters should consider us when casting a vote.

I’m honored to be at this stage at all. Strong Towns Madison (our local conversation) meets on the first Saturday of the month and I get to celebrate with everyone this weekend1 that we made it to the final round! As much as I’ve become a recognizable face for this campaign2, most of our story is born from hard work other than my own. Sure, I’ll commit to saving a meeting space every month. Go to a Common Council meeting in support of by-right duplexes. Sit in a car taking down speeds of drivers for two hours. But it was our other members who did the same things and more that made this year’s nomination so meaningful. Our members pushed our engineering staff over months and years to adapt a trial-mindset to traffic infrastructure. They biked 12 foot barriers to a parking spot to ensure we could host a Park(ing) Day. They made a public comment statement of 53-0 (support/oppose) for incremental housing reform. Win or lose, we have a championship resume, which is what I hope Madison can strive for each and every year.

I’m ecstatic that four Midwest cities made into the Final Four. It was cool to see people rallying around our culture and I hope it leads to a National Gathering in Wisconsin.

But I’ll be honest, I’m nervous. When I logged on to our Zoom call, I met West Allis’ nominators for the first time. “Mayor Dan Devine” was the name of their Zoom account. I was introduced to the mayor and to the nominator, who is also a West Allis city planner, Emily Wagner.

I’m excited to see city officials contend for the Strongest Town title. We wouldn’t be here without Madison officials aligning with the Strong Towns ethos. Politics is interesting to me, but it’s also an impossible challenge that I don’t foresee myself getting into because there are so many balancing acts at play. As much as I think Strong Towns gets things right, I’ve met many people who don’t agree. Those people vote in the same elections I do. I can push as hard as I want as a citizen, knowing that if I fail, I’ve failed only to convince officials and fellow citizens that my ideas are good and no blame can be passed on to me for not implementing them. When decision makers clearly announce how they intend to govern, it opens themselves up as a target. I sincerely hope Dan and Emily don’t receive backlash for nominating and pushing West Allis forward as a Strong Town. West Allis’ story can be seen in so many distressed, rust-belt cities and it takes courage to try something different. If it doesn’t work, people blame you, and that seems miserable.

At the same time though, there’s a whole city apparatus (probably) working for you. If elected officials and staff are aligned, so many things can be accomplished. I’m lucky that our Mayor and Common Council agree that duplexes by-right is important. But at the same time, they want to keep seldom used on-street parking on an important bike network connector and push those bikers instead to use an RRFB across a six lane, “35 mph” stroad called University Avenue.

This decision happened before a high schooler, Sasha Rosen, died two months ago after a vehicle going 62 mph crashed into them on a similarly designed stroad with an RRFB. I hope this tragedy can spark change and rethink the design of S Park Street, University Avenue, and every road that resembles them. We will certainly be speaking out to make these streets safer. But I’ve learned that change is hard and difficult and it can take months and years to see progress.

As the sole representative for Madison’s nomination (because our coordinators and members are working and take personal time for these passion projects), I felt isolated at the beginning of the live stream. We’ve garnered some news coverage, but we don’t have a city press release. We make mistakes like spelling our own freaking city wrong on expensive, color-printed flyers:

But when Norm (from Strong Towns) asked me the questions about why people should vote for Madison, it was easy to break out of that feeling. This is my passion.

• I love this City and the surrounding areas. It’s where I first fell in love and it has allowed me to be the person I want to be: the guy who goes to Common Council meetings on Tuesday nights (or writes about them)

• The people are willing to try new things and learn from each other. We don’t stay stagnant; we observe, hypothesize, test, and improve. That could be adding a missing bench to a bus stop or removing entire lanes to increase safety in a popular City District

• We do this for the love of the game. There’s no pay stub or election waiting at the end of the year. As much as I appreciate the elected officials and staff who have helped us implement these changes, because we can’t do it without their support, it means more to me that we saw bottom-up change blossom from our monthly gathering

I nominated Madison because we set goals that we achieved as a group of ragtag Strong Towns enthusiasts located in the Dane County area. We’ve shown that with optimism, consistency, and hard work, it’s possible to promote positive change, even in a city as large as 300,000 people. Win or lose, we are an example for ourselves and communities around North America to get to work now so we can compete on the championship stage in 2027.

Please vote! And at this point, please vote for Madison. You have until Friday (4/3) at 9am central. The winner will be revealed next Monday.

Vote for Madison

Addendum: West Allis (as revealed by Emily at the live stream) has also strategically employed teachers to encourage their students to partake in a form of voting that they are allowed to vote in. I worry that there is an engine of elementary and middle school students southwest of Milwaukee powering the Midwest Miracle, then Madison, and finally West Allis, to victory. Madison needs every vote it can get.

The women’s hockey team is a consistent championship performer (they won yesterday!), including this year’s class of seniors that have made it to the final game of the Frozen Four for their entire collegiate careers. Wisconsin vs. Ohio State also feels inevitable.

When I got a first look at the Strongest Town bracket, I felt confident about Madison’s chances. We could do well as long as we continued to remind people to vote.

But I was looking at two behemoths on the other side of the bracket. Chicago, which has over 1,000x the population of Cave City, AR, is still a concern for me just because of the large population in a popularity contest. All it takes is one viral moment to get tens of thousands of people to do the easy thing and vote.

Vote for Madison in the Final Four!

I know our Local Conversation was wary of Spokane, WA too. They are nearly a housing-ready city with most of the reforms coming from a push in 2022. They have a form-based code for the Hamilton Street corridor. Top goals for this year include expanding a sales tax deferral for converting surface parking lots into affordable housing and allowing cities to implement “universal building exemptions” that would exempt “buildings and improvements” from taxes, moving the tax incidence to the land. There isn’t a “single-family only” zoning option but an “R1” zone that includes “Middle Housing” by right and a minimum lot size of 1,200 square feet:

Madison (mostly) requires 5,000 square feet for its residential zones. The large exception is SR-C1, the most common zoning district in the City, which requires 6,000 square feet1. We made a lot of progress in 2025 with “Housing Forward” that contributed to our Strongest Town nomination. There’s no denying it’s a step in the right direction. But I hope City Staff can see other cities are implementing strategies to make more housing possible with success and reduce the concerns regarding maintaining neighborhood aesthetics and existing build character. Just because we required 25 foot setbacks in a neighborhood at some point in time doesn’t mean all buildings need to maintain that standard in perpetuity.

To put it another way: if we somehow win this thing, I still hope some Spokane representatives are at the national gathering to help start discussions with Madisonians.

But Spokane lost! West Allis pulled through, along with Madison, Chicago, and Sheboygan, to round out a Midwest Final Four.

Midwest Magic

The easiest way to explain this is “taste voting” that exists in bracket tournaments like this one. I live in the Midwest, I may feel that I should vote for other Midwest cities2. There are thousands of voters in this popularity contest and if we all have a similar taste, that will be reflected in the end results.

The important thing to remember is that all nominations were vetted by the Strong Towns organization, so being here at all is a testament to working towards making these communities stronger (through fiscal, housing, or transportation means). I don’t have to make sense of who moves on and why, I just get to learn more about what they’ve accomplished.

Now put the voter hypothesis to the side for the rest of this article. Here’s my preferred hypothesis: the Midwest is an incubator for Strong Towns because cities were formed before the Growth Ponzi Scheme became an origin blueprint for cities.

That doesn’t mean any city can’t be a Strong Town; this contest shows that what matters is progressing forward towards better communities. Even if you are a zoning restricted, stroad-loving, punt-the-tax problem suburb town there’s still an opportunity for you to make a difference by removing parking mandates on your Main Street corridor.

But the Midwest developed in a time before the expansion of the personal car. Madison in particular has a thriving Isthmus that’s foundation is built on a “street-car suburb” so strong that we still send the “C” bus down Jenifer Street instead of Williamson. The main streets in these communities blossomed before cars changed many American’s ways of living. Sure, we retrofit those streets to make them convenient for cars and expanded further using the newer car-oriented template. That’s entirely visible in the Madison property tax value per acre chart that I think should help inform every Madisonian’s opinion about housing, transportation, and municipal finances:

I also see it in sections of Monroe Street, an area with local businesses, schools, and many different housing forms, that can still feel like playing Frogger when trying to cross the street at specific intersections:

But because we had areas like Monroe Street before the car took off, we have existing, physical models to help realize how we can go back. These streets and neighborhoods weren’t built directly to accommodate driving, at least not initially. The “bones” are visible and all we have to do is take a walk down them to see what we could go back to.

We are the model

The Midwest is seeing population decline in most areas. Chicago is down nearly 900,000 people from its 1950’s population peak. Milwaukee is down nearly 150,000 people from its 1960’s peak (although the county has seen recent growth). Madison and Dane County are growing, and growing fast, but that is likely at the expense of other communities in Wisconsin.

The Sun Belt is not. Millions of people are migrating to Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, the Carolinas and the like. Innovations in A/C make these areas habitable year round while we get stuck with blizzards in March.

We’ve been around long enough that our previous investments are now coming up for maintenance. Land is limited in capacity; we can’t just expand to more farmland or desert. Because of population decline, we already experience a declining tax base. My generation may face the generation of defaults, where cities over-committed to infrastructure they could never maintain go bankrupt.

Here’s Madison’s financial picture as of the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Our story is complicated. We face a structural deficit. Voters approved an expansion of our property tax levy (the state restricts property tax increases to “net new construction”, there’s no peg to inflation) in November 2024 alongside large increases in the school tax levy. The school levy finally made it onto bills and many people are uneasy3. Alders emailed constituents to make it clear the city’s part of the bill is considerably less and increasing by a smaller % than the school’s portion.

But you can see that Madison’s budget has been looking better as of 2019. It’s stabilizing, if not improving. There’s more work to be done here, but what this year’s Strongest Town Contest can help highlight is that eventually, most cities are going to have to get on board.

“On board” means building your streets to foster prosperity. Putting homes and businesses together so people invest in their community. Ensuring that places are safe from reckless drivers and that no person, but especially a second person, has to die on your street. Not wasting “free” space for private vehicles or other entities that could instead make a place more interesting. Nothing is free, everything is an asset, and cities should ensure that they are getting value (thriving neighborhoods, tax revenue, cherished institutions, etc.) from their infrastructure. Be skeptical when infrastructure comes up for maintenance; “is this working the way we want it to be?” The Midwest cities are going to take the first crack at it and everyone else can hopefully learn from our mistakes.

There aren’t many people who are truly willing to pay for the luxury of isolating homes from the places people want to be. The deferred maintenance has a cost and it would be best for people to realize this is happening now rather than decades down the line and finding someone to hand the bag off to. Eventually these debts will be due. I don’t want to be left holding the bag.

“They always get you” is how I approach taxes in my life. There’s no way around it; some kind of tax (property, income, sales, wheel, etc.) will exist to ensure the government can sustain itself. There are costs associated with the Growth Ponzi Scheme. Not everyone will get a free ride.

But Madison, and the remaining Midwest communities we are going up against, can hopefully be the vanguard for incremental changes leading to exponential benefits. Our community showed that a local business hub doesn’t need to prioritize pushing vehicles through a choke point at the expense of safety. This led to potential lane removals for a different local business hub, which might lead to even more lane removals, until the default form is a street built for people. These hubs generate millions in tax revenue for the City and they could generate even more with these reforms.

We pushed for small changes to ADUs, which led to larger changes to specific kinds of homes, which led to larger changes allowing duplexes by right everywhere a single family home can be built. It’s incredible how four months can change the outlook of we are never going to get duplexes to wow, we voted for duplexes unanimously, with no public comment against! These are seeds we are planting that will take years to blossom, but they are so valuable to start planting now rather than five years from now.

We are never going to get everything in one fell swoop. But serious, committed work from the bottom-up is leading to larger and larger positive knock-on effects. This contest helps identify those small changes. My hope is that the Midwest can show how any community can take these actions now and get the ball rolling.

Vote for Madison in the Final Four!

I went for a bike ride this weekend to treasure the false spring we have in Madison. It was almost 60 degrees, sunny, and just a tad windy (but doable). It can be so easy to forget how far you’ve gone when you’re just ecstatic to be out of your living room enjoying the outdoors. This was just over 27 miles.

We are expecting 6-8 inches of snow this upcoming weekend, so last weekend (and yesterday) was the time to enjoy the wonderful weather.

On this bike ride, I got hungry. It was just before lunch. I had visited Level 5 Donuts on Atwood the weekend prior and thought they were pretty incredible. The flavors are unique (my favorites were Shirley Temple and Blueberry Lemon) and the donut has a great texture. My friend had not been, so as we approached the north side of Lake Monona we figured this was the perfect time to stop by1.

Level 5 Donuts is located on a “main street” (Atwood Avenue) in Madison home to Barrymore theater, several other bakeries, and great restaurants. It’s a convenient area to be when you want to snack.

I bring this up because most of the time I’m not going to drive 5, 10, 20, or 30 minutes for a snack. I might for lunch or dinner, but I’m not going to do it consistently. I stopped here because I was biking for leisure and recreation and found myself craving a donut. I knew it was close by and convenient.

Was I inspired by Angie Schmitt’s most recent column? Yes, she makes a great point that unplanned trips in walkable areas result in experiencing more shops in that area.

Love of Place

Which comes first: Small scale retail or walkability?

Today was an awesome lazy Saturday in my neighborhood. In the morning my son had a basketball game at this sparkling new gym nearby…

Read more

6 months ago · 38 likes · 3 comments · Angie Schmitt🚶‍♀️

There are a number of trips I made today that I wouldn’t have if I wouldn’t have happened to be walking past:

• The donut shop

• The book store

• The vintage clothing store

• The Dollar Store

• The corner store

Atwood is not perfect; it’s wide to allow for parking. But cars drive slower in my (more limited) experience and it’s just off the Lake Loop bike path. There’s ample enough bike parking too. These are attributes that make me want to randomly stop and buy something. And I think Madison businesses would be better off trying to cater to the whimsical buyers like me drawn to a unique place instead of the planned drivers of Regent Street.

Regent should cater to the spontaneous

There was a long and arduous Transportation Commission last week that covered the proposed reconstruction of Regent Street. You can listen to all 4.5 hours here. If you aren’t familiar with it, I hinted towards the contention but ultimately you have two groups in opposition: pedestrians and bikers vs. commuters and businesses. I’m going to dub these groups “something new” and “business as usual”.

To give you a sense of its current state and why it should be reconstructed:

This is not a fun street to walk on. The sidewalks are narrow, no one remembers when peak-hour lanes are in effect (causing short merges for vehicles before they hit a parked car), and students are crossing constantly to get to and from the Vilas neighborhood for cheaper, off-campus housing. There are infrastructure concerns that made reconstruction a top priority and the City is taking advantage to redesign it.

There’s been a lot of jockeying for public opinion. At previous information meetings, survey results revealed the following preferences:

These show safety as the top priority, followed by pedestrians and traffic flow. The bottom considerations are parking and event operations, with bike comfort and sense of place in between.

The problem is a lot of these are at odds. You can’t get safety for all users with high amounts of traffic flow. There won’t be a sense of place without pedestrian amenities. I’m glad we can all agree that parking isn’t important.

Right?

RIGHT??

The Preferred Option

Staff is leaning towards option 3 (dubbed “the preferred option”), reducing Regent Street to two lanes but maintaining a lot of the existing parking. So are many of the “business as usual” crowd including the local business owners and UW Health clinic in the area. Bike advocates would prefer to see the option 2 that would add bike lanes to the street (they don’t exist currently) that simultaneously reduces crossing lengths exposed to vehicles.

UW Health had a spokesperson, Matt Phair, who seemed to recognize that option 1 (4 lanes of traffic) was not going to be viable and they might as well sue for peace via option 3.

“When UW Health evaluated this, our priorities were what’s good for patients and what’s good for employees. As you can imagine, a vast majority of our patients and staff travel to the clinic in the car, our top priority is to improve safe vehicle access. Regardless of what we all might hope and wish would happen, we’re always going to have patients traveling to our clinics from all over Dane County in a vehicle. That’s probably not going to change for a long time.

The second priority is for a pedestrian friendly street, it was a priority for our staff in particular… we want to see this street continue to be a vibrant one… where it’s safe to walk to restaurants and shops after work or during a break. And they also want to feel as they drive to/from home and work that pedestrians are safe as they go through the corridor.

Parking is really important for small business owners.”

And I can’t help but feel like this is a win. This is how I described it at our Local Conversation (LC) in February: we fought hard for making Willy Street two lanes, we showed it was workable, and staff recognized we could do the same with Regent Street. Staff also makes a lot of points:

• “28’ is the magic number. We cannot go narrow than that. 28’ between curbs or parked vehicles.” - Tom Mohr on emergency vehicle requirements

• There are over 20,000 vehicles/day entering and exiting Regent Street from Park Street

• There’s an existing bike network option with the Southwest Commuter Path (to the ‘Bike Mafia’: how about we make this path better instead?)2

• There are going to be redevelopments here in the future

But after my bike ride this weekend, I can’t help but feel like we are being shortsighted here. I can’t meaningfully predict knock-on effects for every decision or explain why we should reevaluate these decisions and specifically how we made them, but I’m going to call it out.

1. Like I described on my bike ride, walkers and bikers are more likely to frequent and spend at local businesses that are accessible. I’m not driving to Level 5 Donuts every weekend but I will seriously consider it any time I bike the Lake Loop!

2. By the same measure, businesses usually overvalue parking spaces and catering to drivers. Especially when they don’t turnover the parking spots. This would be a great opportunity to enable a Parking Benefit District and make the area even more attractive for business. Parking spots don’t draw people, interesting (and safe) places do.

3. This will be controversial, but UW Health needs to either bear the cost of the high cost of parking they are burdening the City with or they need to incentivize their patients and employees not to drive and remove the parking. This is the central core of Madison and we should not kowtow to the convenience of drivers. I’m not saying they can’t drive here, but is it unreasonable to ask them to drive slower? To have to pay for parking (Street View shows no payment required)? 20 S Park Street (where the clinic is) pays less in taxes than the Qdoba/Apartment complex directly across the street ($222,000 vs. $257,000) despite using 6x the amount of land! The staff recognizes that having a vibrant street is an incredible perk. Making it easier for private vehicles to get in and out makes it less vibrant.

4. Our LC is looking into the 28’ remark but the Meriter Hospital is a Level IV trauma center, that should be used to stabilize patients until they can get to a Level II center. The nice thing is there’s one just down the street (I marked it with the bigger circle)! There still might be concern for ambulances or fire trucks coming from the West side near Monroe Street, but I think we need to have a serious conversation about traffic fatalities and how wide roads (seemingly for emergency vehicles in this situation) contribute to the problem. Madison Fire dispatches engines all the time (over 30,000 times in 2024) despite responding to EMS emergencies 67% of the time. This might be a scenario where we aren’t burning the village to save it, but instead leaving them vulnerable to multi-ton vehicles driving recklessly3.

Driving isn’t everything

I won’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. The “business as usual” team is moving closer towards better pedestrian infrastructure. “Something new” can walk away proud knowing the preferred option likely wouldn’t have happened 5 years ago. It will be better for the community—residents and businesses alike. But I’m still perplexed by this comment from staff:

There’s a part of it where it’s good to funnel people into one crossing, rather than all over (in reference to a question about not adding mid-block crossing)

This mindset is still too focused on vehicle throughput. Regent Street, as a place where apartment buildings are going up fast and business is expanding, should be safe enough to cross at any point. Like the Dutch cities I got to experience, cars should defer to people. Bikes would be able to safely ride in front of the storefronts, window shopping until deciding at a moment’s notice to stop in and buy a donut. The street would be easy to shutdown for Football Saturdays to avoid messes like this:

But that’s the remaining mission for our Local Conversation. Staff is allowing for streateries. Parking doesn’t need to be required. We can show businesses that it’s the foot and pedal traffic that brings most of the energy that allows for prosperity. Bike facilities likely won’t be introduced now, but in a decade, who knows?

Progress is incremental, we just need to keep pushing forward.

Remember to vote in the Strongest Town Competition!

Cast your vote for Madison!

Subscribe now

In the first round you can vote for a “top four”. Eight (of sixteen) cities and towns will move into the bracket format. There are great candidates. I’m not going to name them because you could really just put down one city and have made an excellent choice: this beauty on the shores of Lake Mendota and Monona.

Cast your vote for Madison!

But if you haven’t cast your ballot yet and you need convincing, here’s why I think you should vote for my beloved Madison, WI.

We are goofy

Our city bird is phoenicopterus plasticus—the Pink Plastic Flamingo. You’ll see it everywhere. We don’t have a flamingo flock2 that migrates north from Florida, instead we recognize the 1979 UW-Madison students who covered Bascom Hill with 1,008 flamingos. The bird has stuck around since. The same students also inspired Toga Party I and II, Boom Box Parade, Lady Liberty on Lake Mendota, and Dizzyland, all on the Pail & Shovel Party platform.

Madison artists are iconic. Here are 4* of them:

*Okay, Elvis isn’t actually from Madison but he did break up a fight “without throwing a punch” at age 42 on East Washington Avenue. Georgia O’Keeffe grew up just north of the city and attended high school in Madison. Nirvana recorded several songs that ended up on their breakout album Nevermind. That took place one hundred years after Frank Lloyd Wright dropped out of UW-Madison.

The writers of the best headlines in the world founded their publication in Madison. The fastest wiener in the Daytona 500 comes from a stalwart of industrial Madison.

Every city can make some claim to fame but it takes Isthmus magic to play host to so many iconic characters and moments.

We have the best University

America’s greatest college town. Traditions like Jump Around (or my favorite “Buttercup”) and a dancing badger. A top research institution that discovered vitamins and blood thinners. 20 Nobel Laureates and the only physics two-time winner. Home to Fighting Bob and Tunnel Bob, two former vice presidents, and the founder of Earth Day. Also the most Olympians on the legendary 2026 gold medal US Women’s Hockey team.

Despite all those accolades, what captured me eight years ago was the incredible integration between the UW-Madison campus and the City. Even though the alignment is not perfect, Bascom Hall is one State Street away from the beautiful Wisconsin State Capitol building pictured at the beginning. Lakeshore and Picnic Point is full of peace and nature while Mifflin hosts one of the largest block parties every year. There are plenty of reasons to want to be a badger3 and there are over 500,000 of us.

We live in the best* City

For those of us who grew up and stayed or moved and stayed, we are here because there’s so much to love about Madison. Parks are around each corner. Restaurant newcomers join a talented scene of eats (I don’t care how many of you caveat the statement with “it’s not New York or LA”, it’s the “but it’s better than I expected” that warms our ~300,000 hearts). The arts are alive, discovery is bountiful, and innovations are around every corner. There are seasons that allow you to explore the highest of highs (May) and the lowest of lows (February). We also have an awesome flag.

For my Madisonians: we are the best because we make this place our home and we invest in it.

For my non-Madisonians: come and join us, celebrate at one of our wonderful summer festivals, and experience why this place is so interesting.

For everyone: go vote for Madison as the Strongest Town.

Cast your vote for Madison!

That’s it! Thank you for reading! Thank you for voting! See you in two weeks when we vote in round 2!

For my Strong Towns Madison Crowd

This is a popularity contest. We’ve already done the hard work this past year that got us through the nomination process into a selected contestant. I will shamelessly pander to my alumni and Madison faithful to try and win this thing. We have to go up against that big city southeast of us; it’s going to take everything we have.

wait a moment… non-Strong Towns people I said you are free to go! Thanks for reading! No need to stay. If you want to learn more about Strong Towns Madison that is of your own volition. Okay?

Alright.

I’m very proud of the work we did last year and covered a lot of it on this blog.

We had our Willy Street Lane Closure:

Our push for a housing-ready city:

And we continue to learn from tragedy, including Sasha Rosen, who I hope inspires all of us to keep fighting for safer streets in Madison:

We hosted a Park(ing) Day, attended countless meetings, sent hundreds of emails, and met each month to keep progressing towards our goal of having a noteworthy submission for the Strongest Town competition. I think we did it. Strong Towns certainly thinks we did.

No matter how we fair in this contest, there are more humble observations and small improvements to be made. A freeway may expand in our backyard. Vacancy rates for home ownership remain at .6% and many renters are cost-burdened (Madison 2025 Housing Snapshot). Our financial position is stable, but we need to be building resilience.

These are large problems that can’t be fixed all at once. But if we continue to notice the neglected smaller projects where we can improve, and we make the changes to make them better, I have hope that we can always be a Strong Town, every single year.

Thank you and seriously cast your vote.

Cast your vote for Madison!

There is not a traditional “two-party” system in Madison. The last time a Republican represented the area was 35 years ago and Mark Pocan won his last election in 2024 by over 50 points (or 182,706 votes). I think most people expect it to be an even larger margin this November. But that doesn’t mean the City and its residents are one-dimensional. In particular, I think about the Madison Metropolitan School Board Member Seat 3 race between Martha Siravo and Bret Wagner. This race was within 10 points and speaks to the type of people that make up the City’s political scene.

Martha’s first point in her plan is to “Help Every Student Win” by introducing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) into classrooms to remove barriers between special and general education. A lot of this stems from her advocacy work with MadTown Mommas and Disability Advocates that started with her personal experience of her child enrolling in special education in Madison.

My work is driven by a belief that public education must be inclusive, accessible, and truly serve the needs of every child

Bret’s front page still reads “Every child deserves to read at grade level. 50% of Madison students, 75% of Latino students, and 90% of Black students read below grade level. We must do better.” There are plans to restructure reading instruction time and improve the existing tutoring programs.

Both want to change something, but in my opinion they draw from the two different sets of principles: emotions and efficiency. Martha saw an injustice in her child’s education system and wants to make sure that no other child experiences the same issues her child experienced. Bret sees a systemic problem with literacy rates that raises concerns for many children; too many to be a tragedy. Instead, they are a statistic that nonetheless needs to be fixed.

Madison is full of bleeding heart, analytical people

The Cap Times ran an article last year from Marc Eisen characterizing a “one-party game” in town that prevents debate and discussion. Paul Fanlund (the publisher of the paper) is a proponent of this thesis, presumably because his preferences are not reflected in the current political climate. But Eisen’s piece is too focused on the national dichotomy of “Democrats vs. Republicans” when we know that’s something that would take decades to take shape again (if ever). There’s a dichotomy here and Paul knows it because his friend and former mayor Paul Soglin was on the losing side back in 2019:

I don’t think moving from a 24 point gap to an 11 point gap in 4 years frames a “uniparty” in Madison. There’s clearly some movement against the incumbent as the total opposition vote count went up nearly double.

But Reyes said it best herself during a debate that Rhodes-Conway is “a policy person… someone who really understands policy” compared to herself who wants to “lean on the voices of our residents” to “build housing in our city that’s practical.” This was in response to a question about the causes of the lack of affordable housing in Madison, to which Rhodes-Conway simply said “we just didn’t build enough housing. And for many years, our housing production, both in terms of rental and ownership, did not keep up with our population growth.”

Mayor Satya has always been the efficiency candidate for housing in Madison. It was proven true this year when she introduced three different housing reform packages (under the Housing Forward label) that passed Common Council, including allowing duplexes in all single-family zoning districts by right:

Reyes was the “emotions” candidate who represented voices like Fanlund, Soglin1, and Nextdoor posters who see allowing building by right as an attack on neighborhood character and the favorably slow approval process. These themes were repeated in the other big 2023 issue, BRT implementation, which Reyes said “won’t benefit all of Madison equally” because it moved from coverage models to ridership models. Rhodes-Conway countered that bus rapid transit is designed to be fast and frequent and “does not go everywhere, sort of by definition”. By making ridership the goal, riders would have faster and more convenient commutes that would increase overall ridership (which we have seen in year-over-year data).

Because the “conservative” faction isn’t a political force in Madison, we now move to these emotionally-driven (justice, compassion, frustration, betrayal) themes vs. pragmatic, analytical, and results-driven motivators. But every issue exists on this spectrum and it’s impossible to say that one person is always going to vote “emotions” or “efficiency”. I certainly didn’t!

In 2023, I voted for Mayor Satya. In 2024, I voted for the City referendum but neither of the two school referendums2. In 2025 I voted for Bret Wagner. I would say I fall heavily on the analytical side of the debate.

But at the same time, I’m adamantly supportive of making sure no one else has to die on a dangerous street and I would decrease car speed and volume to achieve those goals. This would be at the expense of adding 1, 5, and maybe up to 10 minutes per commute multiplied by the number of vehicles making those “more efficient” daily trips. It would be worth it. I think we made the correct emotional decision by removing peak-hour lanes on Willy Street and I hope we look for more opportunities to bring safety to streets with vehicles driving recklessly because they are designed to accommodate that recklessness.

Each Madisonian has their list of priorities. They are likely to be emotionally or analytically driven. It could even be a combination, like someone who is personally frustrated by a $200 rent increase that they understand is a symptom of under-supplied housing units. The “uniparty” doesn’t exist, and it certainly wouldn’t exist to just box Fanlund out, but the feeling exists because problems need to be solved and more people feel that those in charge are working towards fixing them.

Where do we compromise?

This all brings me to Fanlund’s most recent Madison-focused opinion piece about an “appeal to Madison’s ruling ‘uniparty’ ”. He restates Eisen’s thesis and then draws on the newest disagreement about the resulting property tax increase from the school referendums. But he jumps right back into his biggest axes to grind including name-calling and dismissing of his allies, the fake housing “crisis” that he instead prefers to call a situation, and the focus on bike network expansions and road diets for traffic safety. The “appeal” to the “uniparty” is to not “demonize any voice concerned with retaining some charm of the city and its neighborhoods3, and keeping roadways passable for constituents who drive cars” and to “find a balance between staggering tax increases and spending restraint — maybe even by deigning to listen to people outside the uniparty bubble.”

These Madison opinion pieces always get a rise out of me. It’s frustrating to read that cities can’t change because they match someone else’s ideal vision and I’m problematic when I recognize that the vision doesn’t work for me and a majority of Madisonians. When we try to remedy failed policies, it’s seen as ignoring voices even though those voices made decisions for decades and we decided this democratically. I also initially misinterpreted what Fanlund was asking for. He is not proposing a compromise on policies “we” (I disagree with Fanlund on most things so I must be a part of that group) believe and have been working on implementing, instead he is insisting that people who disagree with him should reevaluate their opinions to match his.

I don’t think this will go anywhere, but that’s the one great thing about being in the minority of political power: you get to complain. Sometimes that swings enough people your way to regain control, other times you are stuck in perpetual backseat driving.

For example:

As a result, you have large, nondescript, Soviet-style apartment buildings4 popping up on any available ground throughout the city. It makes me yearn for those long-ago days of debate about Sequoya Commons, the comparatively attractive retail and housing infill development at Midvale and Tokay boulevards on the west side. That project, which includes a branch of the Madison Public Library, began in 2007, those bygone days when considering neighborhood input was still a thing.

Sequoya Commons made it through because of alders recognizing what was best for the City. It was not guaranteed. The Common Council meeting that granted approval ran past 1 a.m. and had over “50 speakers, mostly residents who opposed the development.” The scope of the project may have changed due to input, but doing this over and over again only makes it harder for residents to find housing. If we had it the way neighbors wanted it, it would not be the attractive build that it is and we would be in a deeper housing hole than we currently are.

Fanlund might need to adopt new positions that don’t alienate the renters that makeup the majority of the City or otherwise find positions that net more voters for his goals. For now, renters and future homeowners are looking to find housing options that don’t cost more than 30% of their income.

Of course, you can tell those voters to kick rocks, work harder, move somewhere else than Madison, and don’t expect things to be given to you. But I don’t think that’s a viable strategy. He framed a sizable opposition this summer to making duplexes by-right (it passed unanimously at Common Council), which is how to build incremental housing by choice of the property owners without needing “Soviet-style” housing. It’s really hard to persuade people, who spend the largest portion of their income on housing, that the ideal policy is no new, timely apartment buildings and also no expanding any of the smaller owner-occupied options in areas where people want to live.

If Fanlund and people outside of the “uniparty” (which I firmly don’t believe exists in the sense it’s been imagined) want to regain some aspect of control, I would offer the following compromises5 for consideration:

1. Restructure the Common Council to be a body elected in November general elections, every two years, with 10 at-large seats rather than the existing 20 location-based seats. Make the positions closer to full-time jobs and set clear expectations for committee and community engagement.

2. Move Madison Metropolitan School District leadership under the mayor to provide accountability for a currently low-salience elected position.

3. Implement some kind of PAYGO system for budgeting purposes that would require cutting consulting contracts if there is a request to hire consultants for a different project. Increase City Staff capacity instead at lower costs.

Common Council Reforms

We have done the Common Council reform dance before: we are now electing half of Common Council every year in non-general elections and we are bound to see less turnout and growing domination from higher propensity voters. I think Fanlund believes more conservative voices would likely flow to his side of thinking for local issues. I personally think it’s better for people to vote and if making it “we vote once every two years in November” rather than every year in April is better for everyone’s schedule, let’s do it.

I would like to see us move away from “area-centric” leadership. We are a city that has city-wide goals. If we force people to represent their specific area, they will likely oppose specific policies or projects in their area, even if they benefit everyone as a whole (see Sequoya Commons, I’m a big fan of Chocolate Shoppe). It would also remove some of the alder-bias on housing projects and make things that should be built easier to build because a group of very loud neighbors disagree with the impact. If the Comprehensive Plan allows for this building type as an appropriate use, we should be able to build it. This is something that Chuck Marohn discussed with Stephanie Nakhleh when trying to balance community input with action and building systems that work.

When I talk about re-localizing decision-making… I mean restoring local systems that are capable of acting on community values, not just responding to noise… Right now, our local governments are overbuilt for input and underbuilt for action. Everyone has a chance to speak, but nobody feels heard.

…

I’d say: work to shift the default. If you have a comp plan that says “more housing,” then the next step is to reform your code so that small-scale, by-right development that aligns with that plan doesn’t need a permission slip every time. You’re not ignoring the neighbors, you’re respecting their voice in the plan, not privileging it at the podium.

There’s nothing stopping a “West Side” party that focuses on electing a West Side alder to one of these seats. They can beat the drum for specific West Side neighborhood issues. There could even be a “Neighborhood Voices” party that changes the Comprehensive Plan to defer to immediate vicinity property owner feedback. But moving the default to be focused on City issues and not alder district issues is a net positive change.

This is risky to propose in the current pro-housing political climate. We will see what happens in the April elections, but we are a few checkboxes away from being a housing-ready city and momentum is on the pro-housing side. Moving from 16ish pro-housing alders6 out of 20 to potentially 5 or 6 out of 10 in an at-large contest (based on the mayoral results) is a gamble7. But I think it’s better for our discourse to focus around general policies and goals (that we legalize in the Comprehensive Plan) than having proxy-fights over specific projects.

There’s a lot of turnover in Common Council and I think that stems from it being a part-time, thankless, and exhausting job. It demands the most passionate people (either in support of ideas or in opposition to ideas) rather than the best alders. I think some can be both, but at the very least we shouldn’t have alders campaigning on “I will show up to every meeting because the incumbent did not” and have that be part of a winning message. That’s a flawed system. This spring seven alders (out of 10 seats) will run unopposed. People either really love their alders or no one really wants this job.

But I’ve heard arguments for and against this and I’m the least committed to better pay/being full-time in these reforms.

MMSD needs accountable leadership

Superintendent Gothard was selected in February of 2024 by the MMSD board. Following a search committee (from a consulting group) narrowing it down to three finalists and interviews by a student panel, a parent panel, and the board, Gothard received unanimous approval for his contract starting before July of 2024.

Here are the most recent and most competitive election vote totals for the seven MMSD Board Members:

In their most recent election, five members ran unopposed. Seats 6 and 7 are up for grabs and will have contenders (per filed papers) this spring but I have not vetted the quality of candidates. The positions are for 3-year terms and are at-large seats (you have to reside within MMSD limits and be 18 years of age), so with enough name recognition you can lose one election and run again the following year (potentially unopposed) for a different seat.

Following a string of controversies (1, 2, 3, 4) and the revelation that taxes are going to go up a lot because of those 2024 referendums, now is the time to consider moving MMSD accountability to the mayor and executive authority. Right now the buck stops with seven board members who see the same 40,000 to 100,000 voters, in different years, and most of the time without opposition. Are these voters any different than the 113,000 voters from the 2023 mayoral election? Probably8?

But I think it’s easier to campaign for school reform when it’s the mayor’s authority to pick members who will make decisions that align with the mayor. If budgets are a pressing issue, the mayor won’t appoint budget-agnostic board members. And in a world where everything is housing it might make sense to have MMSD leadership and City leadership align to make schools and surrounding environments friendly for families or to work to help city finances. But for the reverse argument, see Chicago’s recent switch to an elected school board that (I’ve been told) received a major push from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s overreach on school closures.

Build City Staff capacity and spend less on consultants

In an “Abundance”-like argument, I would like Madison to spend less on consultants and more on staff to build institutional capacity. Consulting costs deserve an entire investigation and not a few paragraph blurbs and I’ll acknowledge this is mostly a gut feeling. But having watched us move from at least $100,000 in consulting fees and a two year timeline to $24,000 of staff time and completed in two months for the Willy Street Lane Closure, I would like to have a mechanism to hire staff for longer-term positions than to constantly cycle through firm after firm that charges probably more than double. I don’t know if moving from consultants to City Staff would be a 1:1 replacement or cost savings measure. It feels like it would, but then again, health care. But in the era of welfare fraud becoming more common (1, 2, 3), it’s critical that services rendered are real and that we also don’t spend significant resources ensuring it’s real. Hire from within instead and make sure your staff performs well.

Let’s Dance?

I am not a card-carrying member of the “uniparty” and I do not represent the majority of Madisonians. But I propose these reforms as a way to try and meet in the middle. I think a lot of these reforms force elected officials to make sure they are doing a good job. It does centralize control, but it makes it easier to oust those who aren’t doing it well enough to keep a majority. Compromise requires giving something up. I’m interested to see if the non-“uniparty” members want to play ball or instead hope that the ball randomly rolls back to their side.

More from Counting Cranes

A running joke among urbanist communities is the need for stories, movies, or shows that portray the benefits of building more homes. Far too often, the Hallmark movie features a “greedy, out-of-touch developer” as the villain that learns the folly of their ways and decides not to build the large multifamily building as they fall in love with the person leading the opposition.

While I wouldn’t say we need a YIMBY or Strong Towns blockbuster film, it is nice to have some cultural icon to point to and say “yes, we can have that!”

“That” is a place where communities are connected by physical buildings and infrastructure that serve them and their interests. Not cars, not large corporations or franchises, but the people who make the community.

This cultural icon does exist; it was made in 2000 and it’s a story about a mom, her daughter, and their lives in a small northeastern town called Stars Hollow.

Stars Hollow is a Strong Town

I’m not the first person to make this argument, but I found it uncanny when characters in the show would do or say things that I’ve said we should be doing at Madison common council meetings. The town itself is situated as a great example of what an incremental build, pro-walking, local business supporting town can look and function like.

For those who haven’t seen it (I’ve watched less than a full season), the show follows Lorelai and her daughter Rory Gilmore as they work to achieve their life goals in the small town (10,000) Stars Hollow, CT. Lorelai, a wise-cracking coffee addict, runs a local inn and hopes to own one in the future; Rory, an intelligent, book-loving teenager, studies hard in hopes of attending Harvard. The first season is full of moments that demonstrate how forgiving, functional, and fun the town is because of how it’s designed and how the residents make the most of it.

Forgiving: Dean is the new kid who connects with Rory on his first day and shows interest in getting to know her. Rory is transferring from the public school to a private school in Hartford. The new school is 30-40 minutes away by bus. In one of the first scenes post-initial meeting, Dean hops on the bus and chats with Rory. Rory is concerned Dean is going to stay on the bus all the way to Hartford (he has school to attend back in Stars Hollow!), but he informs her that there’s a stop coming up and he’s getting off. This demonstrates:

• The bus system is simple enough that a new person can easily understand where it’s going

• Stars Hollow is dense enough that bus service to the bigger city is viable

Both are important elements for people-focused communities! Somewhere between 30-40% of the population can’t drive (children, disabled people, seniors) and making sure they can use transit and that it’s easy to use is important.

In another scene, Rory embarrasses herself in front of Dean after saying “thank you” in response to their first kiss. She runs out of the grocery store, into the street, flustered and wanting out of the situation as soon as possible. Thankfully she doesn’t throw herself into a car because the store, while in the downtown, is on a street (and not a stroad). Vehicles are going slow enough that they can react to her and stop. That’s forgiving infrastructure!1

Functional: Stars Hollow allows for Lorelai and Rory to be a single-car family. Rory has ways to get to school if Lorelai is using the car. Lorelai is close enough to her friends and coworkers to get convenient carpooling when needed. The grocery store is downtown, making errands easier. Even in a family where most meals are purchased instead of prepared, it’s not like they are in drive-thru after drive-thru. They go out or pick it up.

One of Lorelai’s favorite things is the first snow of winter. The calm atmosphere and and serene beauty are a must and she (and Rory) always walk around the town, get donuts and coffee, and stand out at midnight to listen to the snowstorm. When snow starts to fall she’s in the downtown area (it’s really close!) and IT IS calm. What’s missing for most Americans is the constant crunching of snow under car tires. When people crave quiet, it’s not the homes or people that are the root of the problem. It’s the never ending noise from the cars. The snow also remains beautiful because it’s not covered in black exhaust and tire particles on the side of the road.

Fun: Stars Hollow is full of chance encounters. The center plaza serves as a third place and community meeting area. We see pet adoption events, rummage sales, Christmas tree lightings, and Revolutionary War reenactments. In one instance Rory, often lost in books, forgets that she’s supposed to meet with her friend Lane. Lane finds her, apologizing that she thought they were meeting at Luke’s and misremembering. But she didn’t! Rory’s just lucky enough that she enjoys being in the plaza and she’s probably going to run into her friends by being at the center of the town.

Our cities and towns aren’t as forgiving, functional, or fun as Stars Hollow. Some get one of these aspects if they are lucky. At the heart of our infrastructure is an overreliance and deference to the convenience of cars. But it hurts our communities when we self-select into more harmful, inconvenient, and isolating areas.

A lot of people tune into Gilmore girls in the fall, based on the autumn and cozy aesthetic the show displays. When people crave this piece of Americana from the past, I hope they will see that we could have this ourselves. It doesn’t need to be nostalgia. We just need to be real about what it would take. You might not get a parking space within a minute of arriving at your destination, you may have to deal with some traffic, and won’t have every store or item at your fingertips at the lowest price. But you will have a strong community and reasons to be a part of that community. You should try listening to the main characters of the show!

Characters advocate for the pro-people vision

The moment I realized Gilmore girls thematically aligned with the “pro-people” groups was in this scene with Lorelai. A local business owner is bringing up creating more free parking spaces in front of his business at a Town Hall. This immediately makes me smirk, thinking about the wasted opportunity of non-metered parking spots. And Lorelai makes the same face I did with the explicit argument!

Opens on a Star Hollow Town Hall meeting. Lorelai walks in with snacks and drinks

Lorelai: “What did I miss?”

Rory: “Taylor Doose wants the no-parking zone in front of his store removed. He says his customers are being unfairly ticketed.”

Lorelai: “No, it’s just because he wants to park there all day.”

She’s exactly right! After making this connection, I stopped passively making observations and paid attention. How many times had Lorelai or Rory advocated for better communities? Here are some examples:

• Lorelai: “It’s a sad highway”; Rory: “as compared to all the happy highways?”

• Luke has a no-cell phone policy

• Lorelai gets a street occupancy permit for a rummage sale in less than a month?2

• Lorelai helps Luke repaint his diner, with avid support from the local business committee

And while I’m only halfway through Season 1, there seems to be something in every episode that I agree with or admire. Not only is the town a gem because of its infrastructure, but the characters recognize how it’s special and they contribute to and help maintain the magic that we observe.

It’s not an in-your-face advocacy. It’s the kind of small quips that I think speak to emotional arguments often used against making cities and towns more people-focused. Lorelai doesn’t need an urban planning degree or to be coordinating a petition to persuade the audience this is a town you want to live in. It’s the nudges, comments, and aesthetics that speak towards the value Stars Hollow has that make it memorable.

Gilmore girls has staying power and cultural resonance

And we should make it an example of the best people-oriented cities and towns have to offer. The most important aspect of the show as a lodestar for positive media portrayals of people-centric communities is its impressive run on Netflix. It seems to go back into the Top 10 each fall and it’s been that way for at least a decade. Many people desire to live like the Gilmores. And we can! We just need to point out how Stars Hollow becomes the desirable town. It’s people living near the downtown core and being able to support its local businesses without owning multiple cars. It’s providing options like walking or taking the bus that are convenient for everyone. Streets are calm. There are places where people meet consistently without scheduling it in advance.

If you give Gilmore girls a watch, keep an eye out for these elements. And if you ever go to a meeting or talk to someone where they challenge an improvement and say “why would we want this change?” you can point to Stars Hollow as an example of what we could have.

More from Counting Cranes

A couple months ago I got to write about a push by Willy Street residents to end peak-hour driving lanes. Peak-hour lanes are an expansion to four lanes (from two) during “rush hour” to try and allow for more vehicles through the Isthmus. Businesses didn’t like it because it took away parking and shoppers received towing fines. Residents didn’t like it because the cars traveled faster in the expanded lanes, making it unsafe. People showed up at Transportation Commission, persuaded City Staff and commission members that a test was needed (critically, at low costs), and they agreed. This was recently featured on Strong Towns and you can read about it below to catch-up. The test ended in October and I owe everyone an update.

We did the test. It’s complete. And it’s here to stay.

Streets are for community building

There’s a lot of data to digest, but non-drivers felt that Willy Street was more safe or the same after removing the lanes. Based on anecdotal and free response data, City Staff shared that most non-drivers were enthusiastic about improved safety1. 88% of pedestrians felt safety has improved or is the same and 80% support removal of the lanes. Bicyclists were at 92% and 91%. Transit users were at 71% and 59%. For removal, residents on Willy Street supported at 76% and residents within two blocks were at 54% (38% wanted to keep the lanes). Businesses were slightly less enthusiastic (31% remove, 64% keep), but 65% cited no effect on business. These are all huge wins.

To the people claiming Madison is becoming “anti-car”, I’m sorry but I’m going to value safety and comfort on an important local business corridor over the convenience of gaining maybe a minute or two. There will be more discussion below, but Staff noted that travel times didn’t change by much. It was certainly a different feel, as platoons were longer2. Businesses liked that parking was more consistent and Staff compromised on parking spaces near intersections. The Streets Division found it easier to handle trash collection and towing resources were no longer strained as parking restrictions moved to a single block of four hours on Thursdays. Everything described is a win. Some drivers felt “less safe” (probably because they were driving too fast) and I hope they will feel more safe as they adapt to the new conditions. When we make areas safer for residents and shoppers, we see more investment into the community.

Share

Trials uncover misconceptions and bad conventional wisdom

I think it’s important to highlight every time City Staff were surprised by the results of the study. They found:

• Capacity was not reduced (expected 14% reduction)

• Traffic backups were manageable (expected lines down John Nolen Drive)

• Backups occurred mostly Eastbound (expected both East and Westbound)

• Weekends didn’t change, overall there were not big differences

City Staff was right about the platoons and they made important adjustments for signal timing to keep traffic flowing. But discovering that the Hairball Intersection was a limiting factor helped encourage at least a “we don’t think this is a bad idea” recommendation. In fact, Staff offered up ideas like bump outs (at non-bus route intersections) and extending the removal of lanes down to Thornton. This approval helped lead Transportation Commission to maintain the removal of the peak-hour lanes (TC 11/5/25).

These discoveries are why we need more tests. If we hold onto assumptions like they are permanent, we will never learn or experience positive outcomes without extensive resources3. We started this study in less than 4 months after the initial crash into the building instead of the initial recommendation of waiting 2 years. We did it for $24,000 instead of hiring a consultant for $100,000-$200,000. We made recommendations despite a failed speed test because the survey results showed overwhelming support from non-drivers for increased safety and comfort. Will this save lives as result? I think so. Even if no one would have been hurt in the next two years on Willy Street, there’s at least $100,000 more available to making another street safer in Madison.

My challenge for Staff and commission members is: what other trials can we perform to potentially make Madison a better place?

Regent Street retains peak-hour lanes

Another local business and residential hub, Regent Street is up for reconstruction. There will be a lot of lobbying and jockeying but Madisonians are already letting the City know that people are more important than cars.

Surveys from initial community meetings show that safety and pedestrians are the top concerns. Parking is not important. They want to make this place meaningful for the students, families, and businesses in the area that make it special. Don’t prioritize the drivers looking for a cut-through or the Badger fans from Janesville that are trying to leave Camp Randall.

I’m sure there will be more to say about Regent Street, but right now we can continue the experiment and remove the peak-hour lanes with construction. If we saw benefits in one area, can we confirm these streets are better off without random expansions?

Parking as an investment vehicle

One of my favorite concepts for a test in Madison revolves around a parking benefit district. Free parking is expensive and these districts turn an asset (popular local businesses or district) into an investment. By charging market rate prices for parking by metering the surrounding area and sending profits right back into district investment, we see:

• Faster turnover to allow for more visitors getting convenient parking (increasing visitor satisfaction)

• Investment into the area to make the place more attractive to visitors

The investment cycle begins and suddenly you have a fly wheel for public service improvements. Austin invested $1,000,000 into better sidewalks. Pittsburgh got a night patrol.

You might say, “who benefits from increasing parking prices? Aren’t visitors going to riot?” Let me flip the question back to you, who benefits from lower than market pricing? The answer is a couple lucky drivers who found open spots. They are incentivized to stay as long as desired, because it’s a prime location and it’s cheap. It’s worse for everyone else.

If we change this lottery to be supply and demand instead, we see a reduction in employee parking (taking prime spots for businesses), increasing the number of shoppers in the area, increasing revenues for the district, which makes the residents happy. By sending revenues to the district instead of the General Fund, residents buy into the system and accept the unfortunate holiday parking planning for friends and family4.

I anticipate that Willy Street will see an explosion in six-day parkers. Residential parking permits are a “license to hunt”, not a guaranteed spot. Anyone who can get a space will want to stay parked until they need their car or Thursday morning rolls around. Instead, we could make those spots more fluid.

Available parking is a top concern for businesses on Willy. Residents like to experience nice things and have higher property values. We can get both of these by metering. This is technically legal in Wisconsin (although no municipality has done it before, La Crosse was close) and it would be useful to understand if this would help local businesses corridors like Willy, Regent, and Monroe.

Land value taxes might solve this

I can’t help myself, but it would be great to try a land value tax in Wisconsin.

The City can’t change this, it would require a state amendment based on my analysis, but we could at least value land appropriately. With the Assessor’s values coming out in January, I am hoping to ask how we get to land values in assessments. Often, I feel as if it’s an afterthought to make the price work out on market assessed values. Here’s an example of two lots on the Isthmus that are just around the corner from each other:

They are less than a minute apart, and yet the land per square foot is more than double for the smaller lot.

Here’s the smaller Few St. lot between 2024 and 2025:

I can’t guarantee that there wasn’t a $50,000 kitchen renovation, but it’s odd to me that an aging home (it was built in 1924) saw that large of an increase in value while the land stayed stagnant. I think it would be a significant step forward for the City to assess the land accurately and use the improvements as the residual calculation. It could inform future policy and potentially spur a movement to allow this across the state.

Tests are good, we should do more of them, there’s more to learn

Despite my ambitious ideas for City policy, Willy Street was a clear winner. Not every test will be that; I can guarantee some of them will be duds. But we will always learn something from them.

There’s also a lot of room for smaller tests and improvements; not everything needs to be a news story. I tried to convince City Staff to reduce Prairie Road down to a single lane after a person was killed from a “right on red”. I asked them if we would consider cones for 4 hours, to see if a longer-term temporary test would be feasible, and I was told it wasn’t worth the effort. It’s great seeing this mentality shift towards trials; it started with the W Washington lane reduction near the Southwest Commuter Path and I hope the results from these tests have proven the strength of adaptability.

As resource strapped as we are (staff time, financials), I think it makes sense to pursue the incremental changes over the highly planned, but ultimately, guesswork. It’s understandable for politicians to want flashy objects or staff to want to commit models to permanent rather than temporary infrastructure. But those cost us a lot of time and money. We need to be scrappy. When there are opportunities to change something that isn’t working, like cars crashing into buildings, we should localize it and fix it. If it works, rinse and repeat to other problem areas. If it doesn’t, revert and use the process to inform a different solution. Cities are organic and constantly changing, maintaining a test friendly mindset is how we can make sure we keep up.

If you liked this, you may enjoy…

Sometimes I write at the inspiration of positive stories. For example, I felt inspired by Progress and Poverty’s Uniformity Does Not Preclude Land Value Taxes to look at what the Wisconsin Constitution has to say about LVTs. You can see that here:

Many times I’m inspired by negative stories. In particular, I don’t like it when people argue ineffectively for the things that are convenient for them, but difficult for everyone else. I came across a new Tom Still column, the Wisconsin Technology Council’s former president who still has enormous sway relating to Madison and Wisconsin. I’ve read many of his columns and I felt like he was an effective voice for pragmatists. He recently argued that Madison is becoming an “anti-car island” (and that’s bad) in an opinion piece that leans heavily on opinion and fails to persuade me that Madison should be doing anything different (in fact, they should probably be doing more).

We live on an Isthmus

He says it, but still maintains that the John Nolen reconstruction project should have provided more “feasible alternative routes” and complains that a City’s official response to WSJ readers' questions hearkens back to Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake”. To be clear, the City said:

Residents are encouraged to make the choices that best fit their situation—whether that means adjusting their route or schedule, changing travel modes or continuing with their current approach ... we do encourage the traveling public to give transit, walking and biking a try to take advantage of those infrastructures, especially when the weather is still good. It won’t work for everyone, but we do know many people who tried it, liked it and sticked with it.

But Tom distilled that into forcing seniors and people with disabilities onto bikes1. Reading between the lines, the readers are frustrated they have to adapt to a changing circumstance like municipal road reconstruction. The problem is 1) roads need to be reconstructed (sometimes at the same time—the same citizens would complain about pot holes if you didn’t fix them) and 2) roads get “scheduled maintenance” in the sense that the City tries to provide ample time for people to understand when maintenance is due, but sometimes you also need to get it done when the Feds tell you to (because grant money).

More importantly, should you be driving a single occupancy vehicle onto the Isthmus and expect no congestion when there are only six streets for those vehicles to travel on? I think Tom and others should be grateful that the Metro system saw a 40% YoY increase in ridership (based on April 2025 data) that can reduce congestion on the main streets. The City saw an opportunity to invest in transit service, significantly increased frequency, and reaped the rewards. The lesson here is that when we invest in alternative transportation, people are more likely to use it. It’s all about making things convenient.

At the same time, Tom and other drivers would like to conveniently go directly from their homes outside of the Capitol to their work/event/restaurant without confronting the externalities of that car-oriented dream. Tom’s problem isn’t with me, a biker/transit user, but instead with everyone other person who wants to drive. To make it so he can drive, whenever is convenient for him, to those areas, without traffic requires extensive expansions of roads and parking. When roads and parking are all your city has, you sprawl and you make it so people don’t want to go there because there are few amenities. That’s what would kill the City. We shouldn’t make sacrifices for thousands of drivers when it would hurt hundreds of thousands of Madisonians.

It doesn’t surprise me that the highest value property per acre is located directly next to the Capitol.

The purple and orange areas indicate higher taxes per acre and that is exactly what the City wants to build. By being close to the City center it is able to build infrastructure at a lower expense and at a larger scale while bringing in more people to help cover those expenses. The community and culture are built here, the places that people want easy access to. It’s the fun districts, the interesting restaurants, the things to do.

A lot of these parcels were developed before car culture (and zoning) were established. It allowed “street-car suburbs” like Jenifer Street to thrive with density that supported transit and business. As the City attempts to bring about more of these housing options, any attempts to slow reform or bring back car-oriented infrastructure precludes these beneficial changes.

I don’t fault him and others for wanting access to it, but they drive from places like the yellow parcels where property taxes are low for the amount of land they consume. By design several decades ago, and by necessity (for the most part) now, the people who live in these areas need to use cars to get places unless they want to brave the elements of the pro-car society2. By simply becoming pro-pedestrian/biker/transit user, and not “anti-car” as he writes, we are trying to make it so everyone can access the City without needing a driver’s license and a steady paycheck. It sounds crazy, but 30-40% of people do not drive in Dane County. He derides the City’s response about alternative commuting, but doesn’t recognize that the “older residents and people with disabilities” may not be able to drive! They might rely on para-transit services or safe intersections to cross to get to the places they need. Don’t even get me started on the freedom for kids to go hangout without needing their parents to drive them. They are a part of the 30-40% too!

We cannot make the City accessible to everyone without frustrating drivers. I think it’s worth the frustration though, because your ten minute longer commute is my more resilient City for hundreds of thousands.

Share

How do we get to a more resilient City?

Still blames the “safety for all” mantra as the main perpetrator for the “anti-car” stance. He states several initiatives the City has taken to make it a safe place to live.

1. Artificially low speed limits, championed by the “20 is plenty” crowd, don’t work on their own, according to some studies. They especially don’t work with chronic speeders and people intent on breaking the law.

2. Some traffic lights are not well-timed, which means car and truck traffic must stop at a series of red lights on the same street versus one or two. More idling means more carbon dioxide emissions.

3. Bad traffic signal timing means drivers blow through yellow lights they consider to be “orange.” They do so to enhance their chances of not getting stacked up at the next signaled intersection.

4. Speaking of CO2 emissions, how about the flurry of streets with “No Turn on Red” signs, even when there’s plenty of visibility?

5. Flashing yellow lights at pedestrian crossings enhance safety … except when they remain flashing long after pedestrians or bicyclists have passed.

6. Express lanes on the Beltline amount to unused capacity most of the day. Just open them 24/7.

7. Plans to limit access points on Stoughton Road, which is also U.S. Highway 51, might trigger reactions from federal officials who may want to protect a major north-south thoroughfare for truck traffic.

8. The number of cars hitting awkwardly placed street medians may be on the rise, according to one local leader who had an unfortunate encounter. Kaleem Caire, founder of One City Schools, recently broke his wrist when his car struck an overly wide city median designed for — you guessed it — bicycle safety. He was told by the responding police officer that it was becoming more commonplace.

And here are my refutations about the viability of these safety measures:

1. Speed is critically important for reducing severe or fatal injuries. Even a reduction of 10 mph (from 30 to 20) can reduce moderate injuries by a third and serious injuries by over half

   It’s correct that signs don’t work as well as we’d like them to, but what you are seeing is a compromise between safety advocates like me who’d like to see physical infrastructure to slow drivers down and City Staff who don’t want to be yelled at by drivers who recklessly crashed their car into a median3.

2. Traffic signaling in one of the busiest areas of the City is herding cats4. Everyone wants to be the fastest out of the Isthmus and that’s exactly the problem. Someone has to be slower. You choose if you want to wait at two intersections for two minutes or one intersection for four. Or bike instead and pass everyone.

3. Drivers blow through yellow lights and red lights. It’s awful5. It would be great if Madison were included in the Automated Traffic Enforcement bill that might give Milwaukee access to cameras that would incentivize drivers not to run yellow lights. Again, the answer is not “make driving more convenient for single occupant vehicles” at the expense of everyone else’s safety. You set the schedule for your departure and arrival; a yellow light from the City does not entitle you to drive recklessly. Take responsibility and drive safely.

4. If you would like to read more on the importance of “No Turn on Red” signs in Madison, I’d encourage you to read/watch the following I did in 2024:

   The level of emissions from idling cars does not outweigh the value of a life. If you care so much about emissions, bike or take the bus/para-transit.

5. We shouldn’t need Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons to cross streets, but see point 1. This is a political issue because cars keep hitting people but drivers get mad when you slow down cars (see point 1).

6. For highways that are designed to move vehicles at fast speeds with forgiveness, I have no preference. But I will not support expanding the highways for “just one more lane” if congestion increases. The way to reduce congestion is to tax it and we should follow the likes of NYC, Singapore, London, and Stockholm.

7. I would highly encourage trucks to use I-90/I-94, a larger freeway that can help with truck commerce/traffic. In times where structural budget deficits are really only solved by generating more property value, I do not want to lose more of the far East side to freeway expansion when we could make a new East Washington Ave a few decades from now. Reducing truck commute times by 10 minutes would not outweigh the value of making that area a desirable place to live.

8. If you hit a median with your vehicle that is designed for bicycle safety, I fear the time where that median wasn’t in place and you hit a biker instead. Going the speed limit is free (of fines and injury) and anyone who breaks a wrist hitting street infrastructure was likely not going the speed limit or otherwise driving safely.

In Tom’s words, “The city of Madison is growing fast, but so are other Dane County communities. Regional planning will become more important as local officials strive to maintain livability for their taxpayers, businesses and visitors. No city, village or town can afford to be an island.”

I completely agree. We cannot afford to waste creating connections via transit and other modes of transportation. If we continue the status quo, we will only sprawl further and become more reliant on inefficient modes of commuting. We will become an island where the time you wait in your car is the toll you pay.

Congestion and traffic are a function of putting more cars on the road. If we want a Madison and Dane County that doesn’t follow every other car-dependent community to freeway and traffic hell, we must do better. And we are, but not if Tom Still has his way.

Skeptical?

I wrote about a trip to Nijmegen in the Netherlands, a city that closely mirrors our own and yet accomplishes so much more in a “pro-people” oriented environment. Give it a read!

Charlie Berens, of Manitwoc Minute fame, recently took a stand against the planned Vantage Data Centers project in Port Washington. It got enough traction to warrant local news interviews of the comedian and the Mayor of Port Washington, Ted Neitzke. Since those stories ran, Vantage, Oracle, and OpenAI announced that the planned investment of $8,000,000,000 will increase to $15,000,000,000 for four data centers. As part of the Stargate initiative, project “Lighthouse” is planned to bring in over 4,000 construction jobs and about 1,000 permanent jobs related to the data center management. There are serious consequences for this level of investment.

There are a lot of questions that remain unresolved, at least in contractual, binding agreements. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? How are we going to make the electricity needed to run the data center? How many jobs will this actually create? Do we want this?

As a Wisconsinite of 8 years and someone who plans to be here for decades, I decided to take a deeper dive into what all this means for us and go beyond what headlines, press announcements, and social media want us to know.

Foxconn left deep wounds

The first thing to understand about tech investment in Wisconsin is we’ve been here before. In 2017, Foxconn announced over $10,000,000,000 in investments to build “Generation 10.5” electronics in Wisconsin that paired with 13,000 jobs. Those billions turned into millions and tens of thousands of workers ended up just over a thousand. While most of the $3,000,000,000 in tax credits were performance-based and were unrealized, the state still invested too much into a company that failed to realize its promises.

So when Charlie Berens focuses the discussion on billionaires using our farmland, our water, and our state to make their anticipated trillions:

AI revenues growing to hundreds of billions may seem extreme, but if AI could improve productivity in a significant fraction of work tasks, it could be worth trillions of dollars.

I understand why he’s concerned. The story goes: a couple of executives at these AI companies decided that the areas that are not in their backyard can host the infrastructure needed to generate their massive profits. They’ve distanced themselves by thousands of miles if there are any tradeoffs to these projects and technologies, once again leaving Wisconsinites on the hook. State lawmakers and local politicians have welcomed these projects through tax breaks, even when their constituents oppose the new developments. No one can stay on top of every update, every news release, and every deal made behind closed doors or under (alleged) NDAs. When they do, constituents show up frustrated at city meetings and make their case to not build it. The city “hears” their concerns, but pushes forward anyway and the construction occurs as planned.

Already, I can see that the estimate for permanent jobs is problematic. Even though the AI companies estimate over 1,000 jobs, reporting and city FAQs put this closer to 200-400 jobs (50-100 jobs, 4 buildings)1.

I want to make sure this story is accurate and what we can all learn from this process. This hits close to home as a data center proposed for Vienna (30 minutes north of Madison) could potentially consume 2.5x the energy consumption of Dane county.

Who’s paying for all this electricity?

The most important story for residents likely resolves around payment for these projects. As electricity costs go up in the U.S, many are starting to look at these AI data centers as a potential source for the increase. They are often described to be guzzling water and resources (like this commentary here) to the tune of maybe 6,600,000,000 m³ of water by 20272. That’s equivalent to 1,743,500,000,000 gallons, or about 90% of water used by Wisconsin residents and businesses annually. Not to say it’s not a lot, but if the entire AI industry uses a state’s worth of water and it can cure cancer or generate trillions in revenue, maybe it’s worth the cost (and you just tax it more efficiently)? It’s a big maybe, but I can understand how lawmakers may come to the conclusion that they want that infrastructure being built here so the money flows to Wisconsin.

A separate consideration that I think most lawmakers are debating currently is the stress on electricity prices. It’s not as simple as looking at the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) energy statistics dashboard and grabbing the “electricity consumption totals” from the highlights of end use energy consumption to focus just on electricity:

We have to be careful, because this is 2020 data3, but this would account for about 67,500,000 megawatt hours (MWh). If we steer over to the highlights on energy use for electricity generation, we can see a mix of sources produce the amount consumed above:

21,000,000 MWh of electric generation in Wisconsin (in 2021) came from natural gas4. Many sources of energy contribute to electricity usage and introducing a large demand would likely increases the price for all forms of energy generation. It isn’t as simple as “solar” or EVs, even gas plants could experience price hikes.

The price for that electricity was 14.32 cents per kWh in 2020. I believe it’s around 18-19 cents per kWh today (and MGE puts it at 18.4), which would be valued at $12,500,000,000 for the 67,500,000 MWh of power. The Port Washington project is expected to need 1,300 megawatts of energy. I expect this facility would run 24 hours a day for the entire year, putting an annual load of 11,388,000 MWh or about 17% of the entire state’s electricity usage. That’s a ton of energy that the state (and it’s residents) will need to contend with. Who will pay for it?

The obvious answer is to require the data centers to supply the power themselves. But of course, if it’s going to cost you $1,700,000,000 a year in electricity costs5 to run your data center, you’d love to pass it on to the other consumers. If you can convince the PSC that this infrastructure is worth building, and the utility companies agree because they are able to raise prices when they invest in infrastructure, you’ll reduce your costs and you won’t have to worry about the residents from your compound in Silicon Valley or Lake Tahoe.

Vantage appears to be paying a dedicated electricity rate to We Energies (the utility that would be responsible for providing the electricity). But I personally would like to see that contract in writing. Is this for in perpetuity? What happens if there’s additional investment? Can the utilities go to the PSC and say that the infrastructure costs should allow them to raise rates? These are the numbers that we should be throwing around when we discuss the project’s merit. Any future projects in Wisconsin should go through the same process and ensure that the AI companies are treating electricity as a cost of business for their bottom line and not passing it along to constituents.

What are the cities giving up?

Many constituents fear the light, noise, and construction pollution that comes with developing around 1,900 acres of land. What causes mayors and city councils to seek out this investment?

The common answer is the jobs. Just like Amazon’s HQ2 search, where cities fell over each other trying to lure 25,000 high-income workers to their city. The data centers promise high-income workers to maintain the servers and that income can be a boon for the community. The workers will buy homes, pay taxes, and buy from local businesses to help sustain or grow the economy.

I think this conventional wisdom misses the key reason a city in particular wants large investment that’s not residential: a wealth of property taxes.

We still pay for the sins of Scott Walker: in 2011 the state legislature increased restrictions on levy limit increases, limiting growth to the “net new construction” in a given year. If you want to learn more about levy limits and how municipal finance works in Wisconsin, please give Erik Paulson a read.

Erik Paulson's blog

Madison's City Budget, Levy Limits, and Bond Reoffering Premiums: More than you wanted to know

For my next blog post I had planned to write about housing, but the Madison Common Council recently approved the 2024 budget and there was a last minute brouhaha over the debt service and “reoffering premium.” That’s a really technical issue that most folks probably didn’t follow, and normally you wouldn’t need to. However, Paul Soglin has been out bang…

Read more

3 years ago · Erik Paulson

It forces municipalities to constantly build to maintain current services or to go to the voters to get levy limit increases (effectively property tax increases). Cities should be building, but established cities like Madison are not going to be able to build 10% of their existing city in a year in an attempt to keep up with inflation. Inflation hit cities hard; 23 communities went to the voters in 2024 to raise taxes.

When a business approaches you and says that they are ready to build a multi-billion dollar facility and that you can assess the land for $120,000,000 by 2027 before the construction has even begun, it’s hard to say no. Port Washington had a total equalized value of $1,720,339,200 in 2024.

Net new construction can be realized in Tax Increment Districts (TIDs) as they are built. In 2023, the State passed new laws surrounding TIDs that allows for municipalities to realize only 90% of new construction value in their levies (although removing the “net” aspect of it). The city estimates “approximately $650,000 per year in new tax revenue” (about 6.3% of their total revenue) will be introduced beginning in 2027. Presenters at a city meeting discussed balancing increasing levy limits with new gains in value. If this doesn’t make sense, it’s because the new assessed value would allow the city to increase its levy by 6%. Immediately levying that 6%, despite the new taxpayer in Vantage, would likely increase property taxes city-wide. As the property develops, there will be more “levy” opportunities, but the city will not be able to maximize these (without forcing higher taxes). Instead, it sounds like they will use state statutes that allow them to “carryover” up to 5% of the increased levy capacity over five years to help spread the increases out (in addition to whatever they do end up levying). When the TID is complete (we will get to that shortly), the entire value of the project will be realized as a taxable asset, but the City will not have used all the levy capacity it generated (for fear of taxpayer revolt). When the levy is determined, the levy is spread out equally (per the Uniformity Clause) to all taxable property at a mill rate per thousand dollars of value. This huge project, if it realizes the $1,200,000,000 expected property value at completion, will make up potentially a third of taxable property in Port Washington and would take on a third of the property taxes in the city. This is the benefit that city officials try to convey to the constituents; “property taxes keep rising, what if we brought in a big property owner to help shoulder the burden?”

The tax increment financing district also covers the city infrastructure costs of the project. The TID will use a baseline property value that will remain at this value until the TID is paid off or twenty years lapses. Property taxes will still be paid, they just won’t increase as the land is assessed for more value (the levy can still increase though). When the property value increases under the TID, the entity paying for the infrastructure can receive reimbursements out of the forgone taxes. When Vantage says they will front the $175,000,000 in city infrastructure (water treatment, water tower, sanitation, sewers, roads) that the city would typically pay for, they are receiving this money on a deferred loan. The city is taking on debt, in the form of a loan from Vantage.

Is this good for the city? It depends. Do you believe this project would have been viable without the tax incentives? With the money being thrown around for these data centers it sounds like some entities could cover the loan themselves. Typically you want to fund projects that the private market will not invest in (like affordable housing) rather than projects that they will invest in. Cities have limited resources and putting it into something that could have existed without your support is a waste.

It does make Port Washington seem like a good partner, but from a constituent’s perspective I don’t necessarily want the city to sell themselves out for a project that has some risk associated with it. If you listen to the presenters in this work session meeting, you can hear them talk about this project as if Vantage holds all the risk of the investment. Vantage would cover the initial assets, but what if the data center couldn’t find clients? The city would pass on 20 years of property taxes and would be left with maintaining a hundreds of millions in serious infrastructure investment. Vantage does not “hold the entire bag” for this project; the city is a part of that bet and residents are right to question it.

What about the noise?

I think the most serious complaint that residents have is the pollution these facilities generate. The buildings are lit 24 hours a day and they are loud, ranging from 75-95 decibels. Madison is familiar with noise pollution, as fights drag on for funding to reduce F-35 noise pollution near Truax Field drag on. The “incompatible” average noise level threshold for residential areas is 65 decibels.

Port Washington uses one of my least favorite residential tools to handle an appropriate use for industrial cases: zoning. As part of the rezoning process for the land, there are lighting and sound requirements for the area:

If I were a resident I would be pushing for and compromising on stricter restrictions. Taking the city at their word that the investment is sound/a risk worth taking, we should focus on reducing externalities that residents will have to face that the investors and owners of the data center will not experience. Taxes work great and the city can “tax” them into stricter zoning compliance that forces them to invest into better pollution-mitigating infrastructure. And in our highly litigious society, you betcha I’d post up on that “exterior property line” and measure every day to try and find moments where 70 decibels were exceeded. Zoning is a highly effective tool to reduce the construction of “annoying” buildings. In this case, if the building is polluting too much noise and light, that is a perfectly valid reason to revoke permits or cease operations until the pollution is limited. Make it clear from the beginning and strictly enforce it.

Who do we blame if this all goes wrong?

The obvious answer for blame resides with the state legislators who passed a law incentivizing data centers to be built in Wisconsin. We’ve discussed infrastructure and land, but that covers less than 25% of the expected property value for Port Washington. A lot of it is going to be servers and equipment. Per 2023 Wisconsin Act 19, projects meeting investment and population center criteria are exempt from the sales taxes for the storage, use, and consumption of tangible personal property used exclusively for data center operations. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue estimates that the exemption of a “typical” data center project will see a sales tax decrease of $8,500,000 for the initial construction and about an ongoing $1,000,000 decrease in revenue. That and cheap resources is what is incentivizing companies to build here.

The state legislators who introduced Assembly Bill 302, “An Act to create 77.54 (70) and 238.40 of the statutes; Relating to: a sales and use tax exemption for data center equipment or software”, are Representatives Zimmerman, Wittke, Allen, Armstrong, Binsfeld, Green, Krug, Murphy, Nedweski, O’Connor, Petryk, Pronschinske and Rettinger; cosponsored by Senators Quinn, Bradley, Cowles, Feyen, Nass and Wanggaard. To save you clicks, these are all Republicans and they include leadership positions. When this legislation was pulled into the overall budget package, only two Democrats voted for it (Madison and Clancy, both from Milwaukee) and no Republicans objected to it. Governor Evers (D) signed the law, with some partial vetos, but would have faced a Republican supermajority in the Senate and near supermajority in the Assembly.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this became a campaign trail issue as we approach 2026. Republicans will likely come out in support of their previous legislation, but I don’t know where the Democratic candidates will land as the primary commences. Some will clearly see this as an environmental issue (even if it’s overblown), others will look to the jobs angle that Berens hits hard on, but some might see this as a necessary investment to maintain healthy city finances until the legislature can work to increase shared revenue. It will be interesting to see if animated local government meetings spark into any kind of statewide backlash.

What’s next?

We might be in a bubble. We might not. The financing for these data centers is tremendous and I don’t see it going away anytime soon as long as the investment remains steady. Wisconsin will continue to be a place where data centers are built if we keep incentivizing companies to build here. We aren’t even the most popular place to build:

Legislators have the greatest control on the knob of investment. If I were in the Capitol building, I would be asking the following questions:

• Will data centers be responsible for building their own capacity and infrastructure to connect to the grid, such that utilities will not raise electricity prices on residents? How do we codify this into law?

• Will the energy capacity be completed with lower emission facilities6 and what barriers do the State need to remove to get this capacity on line?

• Should the state enact strict pollution laws, such that entities in one location can’t construct a data center on a border and produce externalities for residents of the neighboring entity who had no say in the construction process?

• Are we creating bad incentives for local governments and should we resolve underlying issues so governments don’t take risky bets like Foxconn?

In my mind, there are too many unknowns to definitively come out for or against these data centers. I think the best thing we can do is to hedge: don’t over invest, don’t rely heavily on debt, don’t build without ways to mitigate the externalities. Hopefully we don’t get a Foxconn 2, and if we do you’d hope the third time’s the charm and never again.

Go Donate Blood

First, as someone who lists being a blood donor on my LinkedIn page, I need to highlight the "We Give Blood" blood drive. This is the second annual competition featuring Big 101 schools where donating blood can save lives and win your school research dollars. Abbot is the main sponsor for this event and the winner-take-all research prize is $1,000,000. Considering the cuts in funding for science across the board, if you can do something this impactful as an individual and also contribute towards winning this grant, I view it as your duty as a Madisonian to participate or spread the word. Not everyone can donate, but everyone can talk about the competition.

UW-Madison currently holds an 1,000 donor lead over Nebraska. We came in second last year to the Cornhuskers and I would like beat them this time. What’s incredible is that in less than a month we’ve already eclipsed Nebraska’s winning donor total of 4,000 in 2024. Go Badgers!

Shout out to the UW-Madison lead ambassador who showed up to the Epic Systems monthly blood drive to sign up donors; there are a lot of "do gooders” on campus and it was an easy way to rack up points for the leaderboard2.

If you haven't donated before or it's been a while, consider making this a routine. It's beneficial for society and needed. I've been a (mostly) consistent, every two months donor3 and I'm approaching the 3 gallon mark4. What started as a journey to determine what my blood type was morphed into a sense of civic duty. Each donation can affect three lives. Different components are used in different ways, but you are helping trauma victims, cancer patients, and surgery patients. Beyond the carrot of doing good and saving lives, if we get into a blood shortage, your relative or friend may have to delay their elective surgery. That isn't fun.

Many of us do not donate blood. The Red Cross estimates 3% of the population donates for an annual count of 13,000,000 units. Blood donation rates are decreasing. If you are looking around and thinking everything sucks and there's nothing you can do, you can always do something good and donate blood.

And you can now get a T-shirt for your favorite Big 10 school! Donate now so you can donate in November before the challenge ends on December 6th.

Bubbl’r - drink of the gods?

I didn't drink caffeine growing up; my parents limited soda intake and Coke/Pepsi were not allowed. I didn't drink coffee in college (sleep is my caffeine), and only now have I started to get the craving for a jump start in the afternoon.

Enter Bubbl'r, the Wisconsin based "antioxidant sparkling water" with natural caffeine. I typically hate sparkling water (it's too carbonated, to the point that I "chew" the bubbles in a LaCroix or intentionally swirl a Klarbrunn to make it still), but this drink hits the sweet spot. It's not ridiculously carbonated, it's got erythritol5 so I'm not drinking 30 grams of sugar and yet it satiates my sweet tooth, and the flavors are so interesting.

I first came across these in college in Liz Waters dorm. They were less than $1 with my residence discount and there were student ambassadors giving them out for free pretty consistently on campus. However, I was bullied into not liking them because the "diet soda of choice" was Pepsi.

Flash forward 6 years and they are being handed out at a work conference. I try it and it's perfect. Then I start to see them in stores! 6 for $6, why not try it? And what started with a single case has morphed into at least a dozen.

And guess what? There's a bakers dozen of flav’rs to choose from. Here are my top five:

1. Watermelon Lime Smash'r

2. Twisted Elix'r (Raspberry, Lime, Citrus)

3. Cranberry Grapefruit Sparkl’r

4. Triple Berry Breez’r

5. Orange Dream Freez’r

Am I trying to pull a Kwik Trip Coffee guy? Maybe.

Will I purchase these for more than $1 per can? Probably not. But if they maintain the below $6 per case price I see every month at different stores, I'm going to continue to stock up. I'm curious to see if these break containment and start to appear in other markets outside of Wisconsin6. I can find them in neighboring states and most people who haven't heard of them do enjoy them when the try them. But the beverage market is extremely competitive and is highly shaped by trends. I hope Bubbl'r becomes a mainstay.

Subscribe now

Justifying Camp Randall Walkouts aka student tickets suck

Last weekend was a rough time for Badgers football fans. "Fire Fickell" chants broke out and a plethora of fans left at halftime7. Crowd sizes have always been contentious, and in particular this year the discourse has featured ticket price contention. When the athletic department postures that this team/entertainment product are worth $245 for student season tickets, another annual increase and 3rd in the B1G behind Ohio St. and Penn St., what quality can fans demand before leaving at halftime is warranted?

I can't answer that question (it's an individual's choice), and UW Athletics will receive no love from me as a former student if they complain. I know NIL and the transfer portal have massively altered the game, but if they really wanted to, they could sell out Camp Randall every time. Just sell more tickets to students. The problem is it would bring in more fans who aren't necessarily spending dollars at the stadium. UW Athletics wants to sell an experience at a premium without having a premium product and it's causing the whole experience to deteriorate. And the student tickets suck in particular.

If you aren't familiar with the convoluted student ticket program at UW-Madison, every July at 7am students can enter a lottery system to gain the ability to buy tickets. As a freshman from California, I didn't "know the game" in which you get every single electronic device in your household and enter at the same time. This gives you more chances at getting in the queue that can eventually buy tickets.

Season tickets can be had for $245, which is about $35 per game. This is a decent deal for competitive football where you stand on bleachers packed in like sardines in the sun or frigid cold. There are seven sections for students for a total of 14,000 tickets.

If you aren't one of the lucky 14,000, you're options are to 1) buy individual student tickets or 2) buy normal tickets. Normal tickets aren't fun as a student. You don't get any of the traditions because Wisconsin fans like to sit and clap instead of stand and cheer. At times it feels like you are watching golf8.

How do you buy a student ticket? Well, you need a student who has decided they aren't attending the game. This could be someone who went home for the weekend and has a valid reason to not go, or it could be a speculator who "scammed" students into $2,000 prices for the Alabama/Oregon package last year or actually scams students on the Facebook marketplace by selling multiples of the same tickets to different students.

Facebook Marketplace works like this: sellers put a post stating "Wisconsin - Michigan, $1. DM me". Every buyer is expected to then DM multiple sellers to work out a price. Because the price of tickets is unknown except by individual sellers, the asymmetrical information contributes to bad faith sales and poor etiquette. Sellers can fake demand ("someone's offering me $150, can you give me $160" even if that offer doesn't exist) or revoke deals (you agreed to a price and went to meet them at Union South, 30 minutes later, they are late, you text them and they respond "hey someone offered $20 more, sorry the ticket isn't available"), or the serious fraud case where you "sell" a ticket, get the student to Venmo cash, and then just never exchange it. It's an awful system. There looks to be a third party trying to support validating ownership, but that’s going to further increase the price.

Could the Athletic Department fix this? Yes. Almost immediately. This demand requires more supply and I think the inflated prices correlate directly with how willing people are to leave a poor game. If the ticket costs $150, people are frustrated and mad when the team plays poorly. They want an entertaining game. They walk out in a sign of protest. If the ticket costs $30, eh, it's a social experience that's worth the price. Stick around for Jump Around and maybe the 5th Quarter.

If the Athletic Department can't sell enough normal tickets, they should be selling more student tickets and lowering the price.

Additionally, they could change their lottery system. They could be more like basketball, where there's a reward system for attending games (helping reduce speculators that sell whole season packages immediately after buying them). But I'll take it a step further. Link the student tickets to a WisCard transaction. Make the game about showing up (on time) and leaving it at a fair price for everyone. This could help with alcohol incidents (where underage students wait as long as they can before going into the game so they are tipsy at Jump Around) and also our reputation as not filling the stadium until the end of the first quarter. If the source of demand is "how long do you want to wait in line" rather than "did you get randomly selected or want to pay extremely inflated prices", you'd have a happier student fan base.

Will this happen? Probably not. I emailed the Athletic Department several years ago and got stonewalled. But it’s worth bringing up again if we are considering revamping the team.

*Update: Madison TC approved “permanent testing conditions” in November that will keep the removal of peak-hour lanes. Read more about it here.

Cars have crashed into Mother Fool’s Coffeehouse multiple times, most recently in May 2025. There have been at least six major crashes on Williamson Street in the 21st century and a more serious injury or fatality is waiting to happen. This raises the question: what can we do to prevent something like this from happening again?

You go to Transportation Commission and you talk about it.

On August 13th, City Staff, the Transportation Commission, and a few members of the public (including local neighborhood association members) discussed safety concerns on Willy St. and Jenifer St. The discussion centered around removing the peak-hour lanes that currently exist and looking towards implementing safety features like bollards. The staff presentation is full of data and information relating to the crashes, street infrastructure, and costs associated with potential plans. It can be broken into three parts:

1. What kinds of crashes exist on Willy St. and how do they compare to other streets in Madison?

2. What safety features could we implement?

3. How do we study making Willy St. safer?

Is Willy St. an anomaly?

There are two slides that provide context for important points about Willy St.

There isn’t necessarily a common cause for these crashes. While there is a peak of crashes during the afternoon peak-hour lane, the trend isn’t necessarily consistent with the morning peak. We also don’t have great traffic data that’s up to date (the last set of data comes from 2017-2018) so we couldn’t compare volume to the number of crashes. There are different types of crashes, including the ones that go into buildings, and the severity ranges.

Willy St. also tends to be slower than most streets. The one-to-one comparison staff made that most closely resembles Willy is Monroe St. near campus. Monroe sees a higher percentage of drivers over 30 and 40 mph. This is likely due to differences in infrastructure; Monroe is closer to a straightaway for most parts and Willy has many intersections.

A fair question for staff to ask the Transportation Commission (TC) is “with our limited resources (funding, staff time), should we be focusing on making Willy St. safer at the expense of other, potentially more dangerous streets in Madison?” And I think what public comment and TC members got at during the discussion was “yes, because Willy St. should be a street and not a commuter road. Even the resemblance of dangerous intersections and infrastructure poses harm to businesses and residents of a growing, dynamic mixed-use neighborhood that we are trying to build more of in Madison.” This is Strong Townsian at it’s core; Willy St. is acting like a stroad and instead we want to slow it down so we can build a more “complex ecosystem” for development that provides businesses and residents more reasons to invest in the area. You can only get investments if people feel like the area is safe to invest in (whether through homes or business).

From a staff perspective, this might be a hard sell because there are more dangerous streets/stroads/roads in the City that could use attention. But the area is such a valuable generator of revenue, particularly in it’s ability to use land efficiently, that any low cost intervention like covering signs to remove a travel lane could pay for itself immediately in greater revenue opportunities.

If the area can attract more residents based on it’s perceived walkability and comfort for non-car users, we could see more low to medium-sized apartments and businesses supported by those residents that contribute more tax dollars to the City. And because this area already has street infrastructure, this will cost the City less than creating a new development on the outskirts of the City which requires higher capital expenditures and operating costs over time. The tax revenue added based on these new projects is more likely to expand revenues rather than be eaten away by the costs of supporting additional residents. Infill development is incredible!

Would this be worth jumping the line if we needed $500,000 for the study? Definitely not. But we don’t need that much to try this experiment. In my opinion, the costs of performing this test are so low compared to the potential benefits of a more dynamic Willy St. that it is worthwhile to perform this experiment.

Why isn’t Willy St. safe today?

The Marquette Neighborhood Association published a letter in support of removing these travel lanes, siting a speed study a neighbor performed on two separate days in May. She observed nearly 400 vehicles, of which 84% of them were above the speed limit of 25 mph and at least one vehicle reached 38 mph. This doesn’t surprise me, it’s also not the worst I’ve seen (see below), but how many people are comfortable crossing Willy St. during the dinner hour to go to any one of the highly-touted restaurants or shops in the area when cars could be driving recklessly?

Another neighbor performed a study and observed cars were more likely to travel at faster speeds in the peak-hour lane. We should be designing streets so cars travel at the speed limit by design and we should not be encouraging cars to travel faster by removing elements that slow them down. When the peak-hour removes parking, drivers feel more comfortable to travel faster. That’s a serious problem and something I hope we can resolve.

At the same time, what prompted this test was cars crashing into buildings. City Staff indicate that bollards could be installed on the corners of intersections at the cost of $5,000 per bollard, $15,000 per corner (3 bollards), $60,000 per intersection, and $600,000 for every intersection on Willy St.

This is “expensive” for an initial cost, but we have to consider downstream effects of protecting businesses. Mother Fool’s pays about $6,000 in property taxes to the City. It also employees people who pay incomes taxes to the State, that will come back in a roundabout way to City funding. Building crashes aren’t common, but it’s enough to at least think of it in terms for the cost of doing business on Willy St. per Cailey Jamison on the commission. Willy St. generates $2,600,000 (based on 2024 data) in property tax revenue alone, not even considering the properties that are just off of it and benefit from living in the area. That revenue is dispersed for different needs and initiatives in the City and it would be too simplistic to say the money generated in the area should only be used for the area. But it might be something for the City to consider addressing for future infrastructure requirements. In areas where we expect drivers to slow down, like the Regent St. reconstruction, can we allocate funds to provide bollard protection from the outset and protect our building investments so we don’t lose businesses and their tax dollars?

If bollards are too expensive to implement now, the next best thing we can do is keep parked cars in the way of buildings and pedestrians. Even though I’m not a fan of excessive parking, in this instance I will allow that parked vehicles are great bollards. They also decrease the width of the available driving space, which tends to slow people down. Staff was correct to identify removing parking spots close to intersections, to allow for cars to move past cars trying to turn left from the single lane. I think there’s some potential hazards with cars turning right that aren’t looking for pedestrians, but I’ll take the compromise in moving vehicle traffic if, in general, these cars will be moving slower. Some might say that removing these parking spots makes it more likely that buildings on corner intersections are more likely to be hit. Why change anything if that’s the case? For me, it’s because the goal isn’t to reduce cars crashing into buildings specifically, it’s to make the area safer as a whole.

What’s the purpose of this study?

I expect that many commuters will be frustrated by this change. If Willy St. was a shortcut to avoid E Washington Ave and it saves 2 minutes on the ride to and from work, this change is net negative for them individually. However, for everyone in the area that wants to make the place livable, and not just a cut through road, this study can help with perceptions of comfort and safety on Willy St.

It’s going to be hard to measure outcomes for this because we don’t plan car crashes1. We can’t say that these changes definitively increased or decreased crashes over the two month time period. We should be hesitant to declare victory or defeat if the area sees more or less crashes or injuries. From my point of view, there are a few tangible and intangible wins that could come from this study:

1. Decreased traffic speeds (without increased speeds on Jennifer St.)

2. Increased perceived comfort for people not in vehicles

3. Increased capacity to perform more experiments like these

If we do see vehicles adhering to slower speeds, I think that’s enough to claim maintaining the lane closures. Slower speeds save lives. City Staff expressed concerns with traffic backing up all the way out to John Nolen Drive and causing knock-on effects to other commuters2. I think this is a positive outcome if it can convince more commuters to move to E Washington Ave or the Beltline. Staff included this graphic showing hypothetical commutes from the far East side and how with John Nolen moving to one lane, we could see a considerable amount of traffic move to Willy St.:

But we should be encouraging drivers to take the all-highways route (John Nolen or E Washington)! These roads are designed to move vehicles efficiently. If the difference is a minute, but we can ensure better safety and business for those on Willy St., that’s a worthy tradeoff. Especially when E Washington is under capacity and could use more traffic.

I don’t know if we will be able to determine the perceptions of safety beyond surveying people hanging out or working in the area. If you live/work/frequent the area, please take the Williamson Street Survey to provide feedback! Additionally, Strong Towns Madison is celebrating Park(ing) Day on 9/19 by hanging out in two spots in front of the Madison Greenhouse Store. Come say hi and fill out the survey with us!

My most important takeaway from this whole experiment will be staff’s ability to replicate this experiment across the rest of the City. Even if removing these peak-hour lanes doesn’t contribute to lower speeds and more comfort for people, we should be as agile and cost effective as this experiment is for every other street test we perform. Here’s what the initial cost estimate looked like from staff:

The actual costs from staff at the next TC meeting:

This is a reduced test. It’s going to last two months, there isn’t the same baseline data to compare against, left lane turning might be more difficult, there’s no public outreach before the study, and there will be less infrastructure on the ground.

But, this is happening now (rather than in 3 years) at 75% of the projected cost. That is a serious win for making productive changes in the City. Permanent infrastructure is great, but adaptability to the needs of a growing population is critical. We could get survey data, hire consultants to draft lofty designs, and get state-of-the-art data collection tools to make sure we don’t miss any potentially important data points3 at the cost of lots of money and tons of time.

OR we can just try something that’s cost-effective and see if it makes the situation better. We can use City Staff to build capacity to perform more of these experiments instead of hiring costly consultants. We can see how residents react to the changes in the moment rather than pre-register opinions about change that’s almost guaranteed to be negative even if it’s beneficial (think congestion pricing in NYC). We can make changes immediately when fatalities occur to prevent them from happening again instead of putting it on a list and waiting for another death.

If it ends up not working, great, we tried and we can put the signs back. We spent $24,000 instead of over $100,000. We can learn more about how our traffic network behaves and what other solutions can contribute to the problem. If it does work, even better, we know what can work and we can apply it else where. Importantly, we can increment and adjust, slowly making the City a safer place to live in and creating a more prosperous place for everyone.

Share

More from Counting Cranes

As someone who takes most modes of transportation1, I’ve gotten to experience all kinds of traffic infrastructure in Madison. There is no better feeling than exploring your City outside of a vehicle. Everything scales to your level and you can spend time looking at things that would otherwise pass at 35+ mph. Earlier this summer I biked to the grocery store on the East side and I got to watch the Fool’s Flotilla, associate in my memory where the new Public Market is physically located, and explore housing types in a North Street neighborhood on a relatively low stress bike path and bike boulevard route.

Everything was great until I arrived at Aberg Avenue, a Highway 30 four-lane offshoot that severs the North Street neighborhood from a Pick ‘n Save.

When I arrived, the traffic system had failed. The traffic lights were broken and cars decided that the lack of a red light meant it was now a highway. I moved back several feet, called the Madison non-emergency line, and I was informed the engineers would be arriving soon if they weren't already there; they had been dispatched about an hour earlier.

I waited for a large gap. This road has a speed limit of 45 mph but most cars drive faster than that. Technically, there's an “island” where cars turn left onto Shopko Drive. But it's very thin and not really designed for an e-bike. I saw my gap, I quickly jetted across the street, and dreaded having to do it again after picking up groceries (I did end up doing this 15 minutes later).

I know my traffic tolerance is higher than most, but this was terrifying. I nearly turned back after seeing a bouquet of flowers on the traffic pole. For those who don't know, white bikes or bouquets of flowers attached to traffic infrastructure or near streets are memorials for people who died from car crashes. Within a few minutes of searching, I found the crash that killed a woman back in 2023. This is a dangerous street for people trying to cross it. How long will we wait until another person dies a needless death?

Back in 2023, a high school classmate of mine tragically died standing on the sidewalk as a drunk driver drove off the road. The driver was supposed to have an ignition interlock system that would prevent him from driving under the influence. I read articles from the local neighbors who had been complaining about this section of road for over a decade. It was too fast, there were countless incidents including two crashes with pedestrians in the previous eight days, and a crossing guard was hit in 2021. Despite using two systems (the interlock and public feedback), tragedy was not prevented. These systems failed and fail Americans on a daily basis. Having been a Strong Towns member for around a year at that point, I reached out about helping with a Crash Analysis Studio (CAS). The neighbors were terrified and something needed to be done.

Subscribe now

Unfortunately, the analysis requires a lot of on the ground data collecting. I was here in Madison and it was unrealistic for me to help. But I was told to reach out again if there was something in Madison that would make for an informative studio. I knew that East Washington had its spree of fatalities in 2021 (six deaths, 2,600 traffic citations) and I landed on the Wisconsin Bike Fed Pedestrian Crash Map. This map shows every crash involving a pedestrian since 2014 and measures them by severity:

That blue arrow points to a fatality that occurred two blocks from my apartment just two months prior. I did not hear about this fatality; there was no media coverage because it did not make the Madison Police Incident Report. However, when I walked to the intersection of Raymond and Prairie I saw the bouquet:

I contacted Strong Towns again and I gave them the context. Raymond Road, an underdeveloped four lane road with some hills and nearly a mile of straightaway, has had multiple fatalities. As a truck route and a bus route, the lanes are wider and parking lanes run all along the street. There are three signalized intersections in this area, one being Prairie Road. This specific intersection is located near two elementary schools, a library, and many homes. I biked along this route frequently and was “buzzed” like a fighter jet several times by speeding vehicles. When I obtained a redacted police report, the crash was a “right on red” where the van turning right onto Raymond (from Prairie) failed to see the pedestrian crossing the path in front of them from the right. Strong Towns sent me a starter pack for analysis and I got to work on the data collection.

On a cloudy day in April, I sat in my parked car for two hours, recording the speeds of all the cars that passed. Raymond Road has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. My question to you:

I will reveal the answer in a bit; please make an honest guess. I lived on this street. It was not surprising to me because I could hear the cars at night. A few days before the Crash Analysis aired, I happened to see some police officers conducting their own speed enforcement down the road from the intersection. I pulled over and chatted with them for about 15 minutes, talking about the CAS and asking them about speeding in general. They said they routinely caught vehicles traveling within 5 mph of my recorded speed. My data point was not an anomaly in the grand scheme of things. It would definitely be the maximum for the day, but it was par for the course to catch at least one driver nearing that speed on a daily basis.

…

The answer is below this line.

…

73 mph.

This only made me more determined. I measured street widths, performed another speed study on Prairie Road, this time catching speed and also the number of vehicles making proper right turns onto Raymond2. Of the 96 drivers that turned right onto Raymond in the two-hour period, only five made an appropriate turn. Four of the drivers had a green light, leaving a single driver who stopped correctly at the red light. They also happened to be a Strong Towns Madison member dropping off the radar gun.

91 drivers made an inappropriate right turn. They either stopped beyond the line or just didn’t stop at all. Every car nudged into the crosswalk. If this doesn’t make sense to you, here’s the intersection from the vantage point of a vehicle.

Cars could not see vehicles flying down Raymond to their left. There’s a large signal box to the right that can block the view of a pedestrian (we witnessed this our selves!). Every car focuses on the sedan/truck/delivery truck going 40+ mph to ensure they aren’t in danger, putting pedestrians with the right of way and following the law in jeopardy.

The Crash Analysis Studio was eye opening to me. Edward Erfurt happened to be in Madison for a housing conference, so we were able to meet and walk the scene. He provided valuable insight that a civilian like me doesn’t even consider: the steep incline up to the intersection, the signal box, and the tree to the left—all reducing visibility. We had an hour long discussion (you can watch it here!) with technical experts and the local neighborhood association president. I got to meet with City Staff to discuss it in detail and walk the site with them. It was picked up by Transportation Commission where we had further discussion (presentation located here). I didn’t get everything that I wanted, but the City did daylight the left side by cutting down an inappropriately planted tree, removed foliage from a different tree covering the traffic lights, and added a (sadly unenforceable) “No Turn on Red” sign.

Ideally, the City would experiment with reducing Prairie to a single lane. The right turn lane acts as a slip lane (as we witnessed) and the amount of traffic doesn’t warrant needing an additional lane. They can reduce the light cycles on Raymond, allowing for Prairie traffic to move through. I don’t know if this is the right permanent change, but I wish there was more appetite for testing ideas. If it was a colossal failure after four hours of observation, mark that down and don’t do it again. If it seems to be working, extend the test. Credit where it’s due, the City did just that by reducing West Washington at the Southwest Commuter Path to a single lane each way. There was a interim test, the feedback was mostly positive, so they made it permanent. We should maintain that attitude for experimenting as we continue to reduce these crashes and fatalities. If the City wants to take the next step, there are more recommendations in the report on the first 18 Crash Analysis Studios.

Who’s to blame?

In these scenarios, the focus should not be on blaming anyone in particular. These analyses do not exist to put someone in jail or create cause for reviewing the license of a traffic engineer. The important part is to walk away with actionable improvements we can make to the design of the street.

Education doesn’t work. There are “Drive Slow” signs all over Madison and yet cars ignore them all the time. Further down on Raymond Road, there’s a radar speed sign that displays to all drivers that they are going beyond the speed limit (next to a school, too).

Enforcement doesn’t work. The officers I talked to were going out repeatedly and yet people continued to speed. Additionally, Madison police have stated that in increased enforcement areas where speeding does decrease, it lasts only as long as the resources exist to enforce it. When the officers move to a new intersection, drivers revert back to illegal speeds.

I’m a believer in physics. There are things we can do to make the driving environment more hostile to recklessness. Thinner streets, bollards, curves, bumps, you name it. Make it so people need to focus to drive. People feel comfortable driving above the speed limit because the road feels like it can handle higher speeds. If you take that feeling away, people will drive the correct speed.

Raymond Road saw another fatality earlier this year. It’s too late to say “no person should be the second person to die on a dangerous street”, but it’s not too late to say another person shouldn’t have to die.

Share

More from Counting Cranes