You’d think that asking City Staff to look at changing E Johnson and E Gorham back to 2-way streets was the beginning of the end of the world. It’s not like this is an idea that hasn’t been discussed before. In fact, as long as I have lived in this neighborhood (since 1991), traffic on those two streets have been of constant concern.
In fact, this idea was adopted by the Common Council as part of the current Tenney Lapham/Old Market Place Neighborhood Plan that was approved in 1995 and therefore is part of the adopted Comprehensive Plan:
Evaluate making both E. Johnson and E. Gorham Streets two-way between N. Blair and N. Baldwin Streets as recommended in the Isthmus Area Traffic Redirection Study (1978). Evaluate this option in light of its diversion potential and impact on the central business district. (page 74)
The language in the proposed Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Plan is much the same.
1. Develop a Transportation Management Plan for the central City that will implement Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that will (1) make central neighborhoods more livable and (2) improve mobility for all residents and visitors by distributing trip demand across multiple modes (auto, bike, bus, streetcar, commuter rail and pedestrian).
2. As part of the Transportation Management Plan for the central City, explore strategies to reduce the arterial operation of East Johnson Street and East Gorham Street, by redesigning the traffic flow on both streets to two-way instead of one-way streets between Wisconsin Avenue and Baldwin Street (East Johnson is already two-way from Baldwin to East Washington Avenue.)
However, the staff are completely resistant to traffic planning for the Isthmus as we first discovered in the East Washington BUILD process when they issued their staff report last May.
The article in the Cap Times yesterday sparked discussion on three different neighborhood listserves (Capitol Neighborhoods, East Isthmus Neighborhood Planning Council and Tenney Lapham Neighborhood). Here’s some of the interesting comments from neighbors:
COMMENT ONE: (TE = Traffic Engineering)
This is part of a long-range, grass-roots generated isthmus traffic plan that SASY & Wil-Mar hoods were involved in as well.
Of course, TE has to trot out their old bugaboo:
>McCormick said the neighborhood association is “proposing shunting the
>traffic onto other street in other neighborhoods where we don’t think it
>can be sustained.”That is complete & utter balderdash. It which completely ignores just such a (relatively) successful situation on the south side of the isthmus. Two way streets, such as Willy & Atwood foster urban vibrancy in a way that the mini-interstate feel of E. Johnson & E. Gorham could never achieve. I think they deserve better. And McDonnell proposes better.
COMMENT TWO:
It sounds like TE, based on their public statements, has already disqualified themselves to conduct or lead the proposed study in an objective manner. The basic sentiment expressed was, it’s a stupid idea but we can study it. Measures should be taken to ensure an objective assessment of 2-way streets.
COMMENT THREE: (MH = Mansion Hill)
The call for two way on Johnson and Gorham was in a street use document endorsed by CNI a couple of years ago. (Number one under Neighborhood Rules on the attached). This would be good for MH and has been called for by many for the MH plan, which is still in draft form. Two way streets results in 20% fewer turns and reduced miles driven. In the recent Nolan Conference it was promoted as being a better approach for city planning…also supported by Donovan Rypkema, downtown economist/consultant who spoke to many groups in Madison about 5 years ago.
COMMENT FOUR:
In general terms two-way streets are better than one-way streets, Adam. They certainly bring about significant degrees of traffic calming; slowing things down and reducing accidents. The one-way streets were designed by a generation of engineers who’s main driver was unimpeded movement and speed of the car.
COMMENT FIVE:
Hopefully with the joint effort of multiple neighborhoods pushing, a transportation study can more forward.
The city of Madison needs to start thinking outside the box now when it comes to transportation. In 20 years, when the United States war coffers are bankrupt, where will the oil come from? We need to have in place a transportation infrastructure that will take into account the skyrocketing cost of fuel. Cities that continue to expand on the model of the automobile are going to suffer greatly. Will we let the traffic engineers, whose sole job it seems is to increase auto capacity, continue to dictate our city’s transportation directions?
We not only need to reclaim Johnson/Gorham from the one car/one person commuter pattern, we MUST get Madison policy makers to look at how we as a city will fare once the cost of oil will force major changes in our lifestyle. We need to stop building massive parking structures that one day may sit empty. I think we can get people out of their cars with a series of incentives and disincentives:
-employer subsidized mass transit (the university has a successful free bus pass program)
-pay people not to drive
-increase parking fees for those who insist on driving with waivers for those who need to drive but cannot afford the fees.
-reduce auto capacity (johnson/gorham) and increase capacity for alternative modes (peds, bikes, rails, busses etc.) This will equalize the transit options, perhaps giving mass transit an advantageA side benefit to reduced single car commuting will be cleaner air for all of us!
I’m sure folks have noticed that the students are migrating closer to campus which makes the johnson/gorham corridor full of vacancy signs. So much of that housing stock is already in disrepair, what will happen when they become even harder to rent? Returning Johnson/Gorham would breath new life into some of those tired old houses.
These comments came from a wide variety of people of different political persuasions and philosophies of how to deal with local government. They also came from a wide range of neighborhoods. This issue at least deserves some discussion and study.
