| Scott A. Berg, 5th District Alderman, Brookfield, Wisconsin |
You would be amazed at all the bizarre rumors I get asked about. They always turn out to be a story one resident hears from his neighbor and "my neighbor doesn't lie!" is all the confirmation needed. The problem is, who told your neighbor?! I have a list of past examples and will add new ones as they occur.
If you have something you would like me to comment on, write it on the form on the home page or contact me directly.
The comments I received are printed below in boldface and my reply is in blue.
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:08 AM
To: scott@scottberg.com
Subject: Rumor
Is it true that there is no conditional use permit to build the fire station on the land currently occupied by now three residences on Calhoun and Greenfield? If so, why did the city already bulldoze a home when they don't have the 100% go ahead? Is this just a way for the Mayor and Common Council do get their way before a portion of the council is overturned this spring with elections? Is it true that the land across the street is STILL empty with no plans in the near future? Seems like a way to get this plan jammed through before anything can possibly get in the way.
First, I asked Brookfield's Director of Administration Dean Marquardt for comment. This is his reply:
Municipal code
subsection 17.108.050(A)(12) states that a fire station may be
permitted in any use district upon the specific authorization of the
council. Subsection 17.108.050(B) outlines the procedure for
obtaining a conditional use permit. The application shall be
considered before the plan commission after the appropriate public
notice. The plan commission may recommend and the council may
impose such restrictions upon the use, height and bulk of any
structure or land so approved for condition use as may be reasonable
under the circumstances, provided such restrictions shall not be
more restrictive that the requirements established for the district
in which such structure is proposed to be located.
The base zoning for
the proposed fire station number 3 is R-3 and M-1. The M-1 zoning
was established for those properties purchased by the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation during the reconstruction of State
Highway 59, Greenfield Avenue. The City has received approval to
purchase the DOT property via a formal letter this morning for a
very reasonable amount. After the City of Brookfield takes title of
the DOT parcels, that land will be rezoned from M-1 to R-3, which is
compatible with the Greenfield Heights subdivision around the site.
There is an approved
plan for the commercial development located on the northeast corner
of Greenfield Avenue and Calhoun Road. The developer will be moving
forward with the redevelopment in the future.
Next, I asked Brookfield's Director of Community Development Dan Ertl for comment. This is his reply (it was less verbose than usual):
As stated several times and as opined by Attorney Flaherty, the protest petition process does not apply to conditional uses.
A conditional use permit is not the same as a zoning change. A zoning change allows for a protest petition to be filed by a neighbor and requires a 3/4 majority of the council for approval. That just doesn't apply here. There is a lot of misinformation being spread on his point.
The April 1 election turned over only one seat, and that was due to a voluntary retirement.
The parcel on the east side of Calhoun has an approved plan, but with today's economy who can blame the developer for being cautious? Having the new building delayed a year or two will be irrelevant over the long lifespan of the new station.
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:44 AM
To: scott@scottberg.com
Subject: Rumor
There is no shortage of hard data. A recent University of California at
Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found
that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9
percent within four years' time. For anecdotal evidence, one need
only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway
systems. USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: "For years,
Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more miles of highways
per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City. As a result of
the area's sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than
residents of any other city. This phenomenon, which is now well known to
those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has
come to be called induced traffic.
The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an
aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic
congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening
your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome,
and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their
workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the
long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for
additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by
the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through
traffic on as few streets as possible.
While the befuddling fact of induced traffic is well understood by sophisticated
traffic engineers, it might as well be a secret, so poorly has it been
disseminated. The computer models that transportation consultants use do not
even consider it, and most local public works directors have never heard of it
at all. As a result, from Maine to Hawaii, city, county, and even state
engineering departments continue to build more roadways in anticipation of
increased traffic, and, in doing, create that traffic. The most irksome aspect
of this situation is that these road-builders are never proved wrong; in fact,
they are always proved 'right': "You see," they say, "I told you that traffic
was coming."
First, I asked Brookfield's Director of Public Works Tom Grisa to comment. This is his reply [edited for length]:
This induced traffic can exist - but it is kind of like the chicken and egg debate. Is the traffic there because the road exists (clearly it wouldn't be on a road that doesn't exist) or is the road there because people want to travel in that direction? Both are true, but I hold the latter is the main reason traffic exists on any given roadway.
I will try to summarize this into a few sentences recognizing that anything less than the full report is woefully inadequate.
[ed. note: The report referred to is: "Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) Planning Report No. 49, the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan", specifically Chapter I - Introduction, Chapter IV - Travel Habits and Patterns, Chapter V - Anticipated Regional Growth and Change (including sections on 2035 transportation, employment, population, household forecasts and vehicle availability, internal person trips, internal vehicle trips vehicle-miles of travel and even public transit ridership and more), and Chapter VII - Objectives, Principles and Standards.
http://sewrpc.org/publications/pr/pr-049_regional_transportation_system_plan_for_se_wi_2035.pdf
June, 2006 604 pages, PDF is 59+ meg]
Traffic patterns are not based solely on widths of roads as some like to contend. [Ald. Berg] actually did a very thorough job of explaining this concept in [his] response. Traffic chooses to go where it wants based on time of day, origin, destination, efficiency of the route, safety of the route, personalities of the driver [see Ald. Berg's reply to February 8 message below], linked trips, congestion, radio traffic reports and now with the advent of the GPS systems for cars and even things like MapQuest, they identify routes for drivers who may otherwise choose another route, and more reasons that I don't have time to include. Furthermore, land use decisions and employment decisions and economics impact travel patterns too. We even impact traffic decisions based on the development patterns we establish making cul-de-saced streets in neighborhoods rather than a grid of streets. I am not disagreeing with this approach, but it must be recognized it impacts traffic, forcing it to arterial roadways. And Brookfield has endorsed this pattern through its 2020 Master Plan.
All of these decisions drive (pardon the pun) transportation infrastructure, not the other way around. We have long stated [Dir. Grisa and City Engineer Jeff Chase have stated this in public many, MANY times] that land use decisions come first, then we build the infrastructure to support it. People choose to live where they want, where they can afford to live, etc. They work where they want or can. They recreate where they want. These are choices people make because of the freedoms we have in this country. They even choose the method of transportation they want (car vs. bus vs. bike vs. walking, etc.). We can either accommodate those choices or ignore them. I think it is most responsible to provide for the safe and efficient infrastructure to support these decisions, provided we can afford it. That is also a debatable (can we afford it - both monetarily and impact to society as well as safety of the routes - how much is a human life worth?, etc.) and further shows the complication of this issue.
Hope this helps.
Thomas M. Grisa, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Brookfield
Ph. (262) 796-6644
Which leads me to my reply:
So, when that rapid increase you claim (9% in 4 years for every 10% road capacity increase) occurred, where did all those cars come from? Opponents of road projects apparently believe they were entirely people who moved into the area or started to commute through the area during that four year period. That is, the new road enabled the immediate construction of housing that would not have otherwise been built. Isn't it possible that many of those cars were travelling on other roads, filled to frustrating capacity and thus slow and unsafe, who started taking the new highway because it was faster and safer? That diversion of traffic means the formerly overused roads became less travelled, faster and safer. Do the studies measure traffic volume and accident rates on nearby secondary streets to see if there is improvement on them?
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 7:10 AM
Subject: Rumor
Thanks for the reply on the Calhoun Rd widening. I guess I have one more question on this topic; why would we want to widen the road if we knew it was going to increase traffic ? I moved here from a suburb of Detroit and the exact same debate occurred. The road was eventually widened and now it one of the most heavily traveled suburban corridors in the Detroit suburbs. The city ended up having to put lights and turn lanes so that residents could easily enter the road from neighborhood streets. I guess my concern as a new resident is why not protect Brookfield from this traffic and keep the roads as they are to discourage this increase in traffic ?
You have hit on what is known as the "If you build it, they will come" argument. That phrase was popularized in the movie Field of Dreams. For this to be a valid opposition argument, the opposite must also be true, "If you don't build it, they won't come."
In fact, the traffic is already here and is growing. This is creating congestion and unsafe driving conditions. You can either expand the road to meet the traffic that is already there and is projected to increase or you can ignore the situation and watch a bad situation become even worse.
After all, just what alternate routes are available? 124th Street dead ends on Watertown Plank. Lilly Road dead ends on North Avenue. Pilgrim Road connects a lot, but goes to two lanes in several places, just like Calhoun. Brookfield Road is two lanes and goes through multiple school zones and shopping districts making it impossible to ever widen much. Barker Road starts at Capitol Drive on the north, becomes two lanes for most of its length, then ends at Greenfield. Springdale is about the same as Barker. So, if the traffic volume from the north is increasing and all the possible north/south routes are unsafe, is it good policy to not widen anything and make everything even less safe?
A specific example is the widening of Calhoun Road between Gebhardt Road and Blue Mound Road. That two lane road could safely handle 13,000 cars/day and was already getting 22,000+ cars/day. There were many accidents, resident's complained they couldn't get out of their driveways, etc. The (admittedly painful) road improvement were made and the road is now safer for all concerned. By the way, I tried to make that widening split more evenly east/west but was outvoted. As a result people on the west side of Calhoun Road (district 5) lost most of their front yards while people on the east side (district 6) lost much less. The pain was not shared equally. Where were all the "Never widen anything anywhere" opponents then to pressure my fellow aldermen into agreeing with me? In spite of all the rhetoric, road widening is very much a neighborhood issue.
Road construction opponents often cite "a study done in Texas a few years ago that proves not widening roads is good policy". I have yet to see such a study. I wonder if it's an urban legend? Perhaps one of the readers can give me a complete description so that I can find a copy.
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:38 AM
To: scott@scottberg.com
Subject: Rumor
do you think that the widening of Calhoun will create
a more heavily traveled cooridor [sic] for Falls residents who work in New Berlin or
any points south versus taking 45 as it is so backed up in the morning ?
If I lived in the Falls and had an option, I would take
a 4 lane cut through instead of sitting in traffic !
To compare to Milwaukee, how many people take Greenfield Avenue or Wisconsin Avenue instead of I-94? When I worked downtown (over 6 years) I would only take those routes on nice summer days when I wasn't in a hurry but wanted to see historic Milwaukee neighborhoods, avoid unusually heavy traffic I heard about on the traffic report, etc. They never turned into regular routes because I-94, for all its faults, was faster and more convenient.
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:40 AM
To: scott@scottberg.com
Subject: Rumor
I had heard that daytime pop for those business on
124th street was not taken into account when the analysis was done for the fire
station relocation and closing of the lilly/capitoal location.
I did see the analysis and I did not see daytime pop
included in the basic regression analysis.
what is the factor at which services will improve or
decrease for these businesses ?
I would also include West to Lilly, including East high
school
I do plan to write a detailed web page on the fire station relocations. To the immediate question:
The analysis performed both "unweighted" and "weighted" estimates. The unweighted analysis chose a random address in the north side service zone and measured how long it took to get there. The weighted analysis considered how many structures were near that address. The reasoning was that more structures implies more calls and "pulls" the station location to that higher density area.
The Lilly/Capitol station was built when there was very little development west of Calhoun Road and was based on a plan to build five (5) city stations to serve 80,000 residents instead of the current three stations to serve 40,000 residents. It is very near 124th Street, the eastern city limit. The 4 minute prime drive time zone extends east well outside Brookfield (drive from the station to eastbound Capitol Drive - everything past 124th Street is "waste"), yet people living near that station never complained about all that fast response zone being in another city. The same is true with the south side station, which is only slightly more north that the proposed Calhoun site and includes Elm Grove in the northern side of the 4 minute zone. The weighted analysis clearly showed that moving the station west will provide better service to more people.
There is a lot more to this that will be included on the web page. For example, the alternative of sharing fire service with Pewaukee was explored but rejected by both sides for many reasons. Building a fourth station somewhere on the west side would be $2 to $3 million for the building plus $1.4+ million/year for staffing and daily operations.
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:58 PM
To: scott@scottberg.com
Subject: Rumor
Wasn't January 16th a Wednesday ??
I suspect that I'm being baited, but if I don't respond I
will be accused of, well, "not responding". So, here goes:
If you read the home page carefully , you
will see the message:
Of course, since I have a "day job" I won't be able to
update this site a half dozen times a day, every day. I plan to make a
significant update every Monday morning, possibly more.
Updating a page on a Wednesday would be the "possibly more" part.