TO: Joint West Campus Area Committee
RE: Proposed Lot 76 Parking Ramp
DATE: November 21, 2002
The Regent Neighborhood Association has been working on this committee since it was created 7 years ago, always urging the UW to acknowledge its role in the surrounding community. We have supported projects to add academic buildings, as well as patient-care space to the hospital. We did not object to adding parking to the Patient/Visitor ramp to make it more convenient for people to seek medical care or visit their friends and family in the hospital. But we have serious reservations about the current proposal for a large, stand-alone, parking facility on the West Campus until the UW has made a greater effort to address the following issues:
1. The ramp is proposed to be built in an environmentally
sensitive area without the heightened scrutiny required by the UW’s Master
Plan,
2. The project has not received the necessary air quality permit from the
Wisconsin DNR for a ramp of over 1000 spaces,
3. Several important infrastructure improvements, first recommended in 1999,
have not been undertaken,
4. Improved TDM efforts have not been given a reasonable time period to succeed,
5. The campus has not developed an overall Transportation Master Plan, and
6. Partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions have not been formalized to
plan
and pay for mitigation of the traffic impacts caused by developments on the
West Campus.
These issues, and how they could be addressed by the University, are discussed
more fully in the pages that follow.
1. The UW has not met its own standards for higher scrutiny of projects
proposed in the "minimal development zone" identified in its Master
Plan. The establishment of the MDZ was based upon input from university sources
during the Master Planning process, and expresses campus values regarding
environmentally and aesthetically sensitive natural areas. Although a couple
of additions have been added to existing buildings since the area was established,
and a portion of the new pharmacy building extends into the MDZ, this ramp
would be the first new structure to be built within this environmentally sensitive
zone. Perhaps justifications could be found for siting academic buildings
partially in an area valued for its "natural and aesthetic qualities
and recreational facilities", but the same arguments could not be used
to justify building a garage there (especially in a location which would cut
off what’s left of the view of Lake Mendota between the Nielsen Tennis
Stadium and the new pharmacy building).
The University should pursue a broader and more intensive internal review
process (not simply the usual EIS analysis) to decide whether or not to build
a parking ramp in one of its most precious locations on the campus.
2. The UW has not obtained the necessary air quality permit from the
Wisconsin DNR required for building parking ramps which have more than 1000
spaces. It should also be noted that the Co-Generation Power Plant which has
been proposed on Walnut Street would use up a significant amount of the remaining
“air pollution increment” available under the state’s Prevention
of Significant Deterioration program; once this increment is exhausted, Dane
County would be given “air pollution non-attainment status”, with
negative health and economic consequences to the community and the UW. We
believe that the cumulative impacts of these projects should be evaluated
before either of them
is approved.
3. The UW has not taken the necessary steps to provide infrastructure
improvements, which were recommended by its own parking and engineering consultants,
as well as city staff, as early as 1999. All of the improvements listed below
should be in place before, or be built simultaneously with, any new parking
facilities on the West Campus.
a) Intersection of University Bay Drive/Farley Avenue with Campus Drive:
Walker Parking Consultants determined that this intersection already functions
at a near-failure level of service, and that the addition of only Phase I
of the proposed ramp on Lot 76 will cause failures at peak times, and specific
improvements to this intersection were recommended in its first report, submitted
in1999, as well as its most recent report submitted in April, 2002. The UW’s
engineering consultants, Arnold & O’Sheridan, supported Walker’s
recommendations in a memo dated May 2002. The report from the City of Madison,
dated September 13, 2002 also supports major changes in this intersection,
and suggests that the levels of service need to be analyzed, reviewed and
modified in light of the UW’s proposal to increase the size of the ramp
by 50% in Phase II. The UW should participate in making improvements to this
intersection before any new parking is built on the West Campus.
b) Bridge across Campus Drive at University Bay Drive/Farley Avenue:
The need for a pedestrian bridge crossing this intersection was first identified
by the neighborhoods, and subsequently adopted by both Walker studies as well
as the engineers at Arnold & O’Sheridan. In its recent report (page
6, item #1),
City of Madison traffic engineering staff suggest that the bridge be constructed
simultaneously with any major parking ramp. We suggest that the funds currently
budgeted for a 400 foot skywalk between the pharmacy building and the proposed
Lot 76 ramp (approximately $720,000) be utilized for this pedestrian bridge
instead. It would also be prudent to consider changes in the traffic signals
at this intersection to afford pedestrians safer passage on the street level
to and from the ends of the bridge by permitting only left-turning movements,
then only non-turning movements, in addition to prohibiting right turns on
red lights.
c) Intersection of Highland Avenue and University Avenue: In its first
report, Walker Parking Consultants proposed certain changes in pavement striping
and signal operation that would prevent this intersection from degrading a
full category if additional parking is built on the West Campus. At a cost
of approximately $25,000, these improvements should be made immediately.
d) Extending Observatory Drive from Walnut Street to the hospital entrance.
This idea was suggested in discussions of the first Walker report, and was
most recently included in Arnold & O’Sheridan’s recommendation
concerning Lot 76 in May of 2002. The principle of providing more options
for traffic on the campus should, in fact, be expanded to include entrances
to the entire campus to avoid concentrating the traffic at a few locations
which then have to bear the burden, especially when these locations are not
on the campus itself but in the surrounding neighborhoods.
e) Completing the sidewalk network on the West Campus. Many gaps in the sidewalk
system have been identified by the neighborhoods and City of Madison staff
(report page 3). The City report suggests that the UW plan and budget for
sidewalks on a specific timeline rather than tying their construction to new
building projects (page 6, item #3).
f) Establishing connections between bikepaths within the campus and
the larger network of paths coming from the City of Madison and the Village
of Shorewood Hills. The City report suggests a joint planning effort by the
UW, City, Village of Shorewood Hills, WisDOT and WSOR with a specific budget
and timeline for accomplishing this goal (page 6, item #6). Enhanced facilities,
e.g. covered bicycle parking and shower/changing rooms, would also help to
encourage more employees to bike to work.
g) Implementing traffic calming measures on feeder streets. The neighborhoods
are already feeling the negative impact of UW commuter traffic to and from
campus, and seeing a deterioration of residential properties located on those
streets, resulting in high turnover of ownership and neglect of maintenance.
The City of Madison’s program for neighborhood traffic calming is not
very large ($25,000 per year), and the neighborhoods near the UW cannot expect
to receive more than their share of the funding when other areas of the city
also need traffic calming. The City report notes (page 5, item #4) that certain
developments have been required to provide a level of funding for traffic
calming or mitigation on residential streets, around $15-25,000. Whether it
is at this level, or hopefully higher, the UW must become a financial participant
in traffic calming efforts in the residential communities that surround the
campus.
All of the above suggestions to mitigate the impact of traffic and parking
on the West Campus should be implemented regardless of whether this, or any
other, ramp project
is approved; these measures would make a significant positive impact upon
the already difficult situation caused by the concentration of workplaces
and services on the West Campus.
4. The UW has not given the recent, and significant, changes in its
parking program and new efforts to encourage alternative modes of transportation
(TDM) a chance to work before building more parking. Raising parking rates
and offering free bus passes to faculty and staff are very important steps
in the UW’s efforts in Transportation Demand Management; the neighborhoods
strongly support these changes and hope that they significantly reduce the
number of cars making journeys to work on the campus so that parking ramps
like the one proposed for Lot 76 will not need to be built. (We have additional
suggestions for TDM, which we will supply to the UW on December 4th when we
discuss criteria for Phase II.) The impact of these changes should be evaluated
over
a period of at least one year before any new parking structures are approved
on campus
5. The UW has not completed the Transportation Master Plan recommended
by its own Transportation Services Department. In the meantime, the surrounding
community suffers greater and greater impacts from the growing traffic generated
by the University. In addition to the neighborhoods’ concerns, the City
has been commenting about current and future traffic conditions in the area
since the Master Plan process in 1995 (report page 5). Before any additional
parking ramps are approved for the campus, the UW should propose an overall
plan for parking which specifies where and how many stalls
it hopes to build; otherwise the community will be faced with one proposal
after another asking to be considered on its own merits without regard to
the cumulative impact.
For example, the following could occur on the West Campus: In Arnold &
O’Sheridan’s recommendation, it says that that Lot 76 was chosen
because the UW was unable to reach an agreement that it considered economically
favorable for a joint project – but that if those economics were to change
in the future, a new ramp could be built on the VA location instead of expanding
Lot 76. If this scenario was played out, the community could be faced with
an 880 stall parking ramp in an environmentally sensitive area of the campus,
in addition to a new ramp being constructed on the VA site with at least 680
spaces (200 more than the expansion of Lot 76 would have added, but Phase
II would still be possible at some future time). We believe that a moratorium
on building campus parking until the UW has completed a Transportation Master
Plan is appropriate.
6. An Inter-Governmental Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding may
be needed between the City, the UW and the Village of Shorewood before any
significant progress can be made on proposals for parking on the West Campus.
The Village of Shorewood Hills has gone on record opposing additional parking
on this part of the campus, and may be considering ways to legally prevent
the improvements that have been proposed for those portions of University
Bay Drive that are within its jurisdiction. Projects which have an impact
on areas beyond the campus boundaries will require the cooperation of all
relevant parties in order to arrive at the best possible outcome – without
that cooperation, parties may continue to work at cross-purposes and the larger
community will suffer the consequences. The City of Madison in its report
(page 3) encourages the joint planning and budgeting of many of the improvements
recommended before pursuing new building projects on the West Campus –
but we have seen little evidence that these efforts are progressing on a pace
equal to that of development proposals in the area. Without a joint commitment
based on a common vision, each new proposal is likely to be faced with the
types of questions that now face the Lot 76 project, not because anyone is
“drawing a line in the sand” on this particular ramp but, because
it is simply not responsible land use planning to consider each new project
solely on its own merits without regard to the context and cumulative effects.
7. If, and when, any parking ramp is approved for the West Campus,
we hope that consideration will be given to its design, both aesthetically
and environmentally, and
its location. Pre-treatment of the various types of waste associated with
automobiles
is essential before releasing it into the environment so close to Lake Mendota.
As for alternative locations, the building sites originally reserved around
WARF have been utilized only for parking (Lot 64); wrapping a multi-level
ramp around this building, which is already taller than anything else around
it, could provide new parking opportunities near the medical complex. Surface
Lot 62, across from the Natatorium, currently provides 427 spaces and is located
on the main east-west artery of the campus where it could serve not only the
medical campus but the agricultural campus as well.
8. The Accreditation Argument. Dean Farrell’s concerns about this
issue are legitimate, but it should be noted that there are those who question
whether the state of Wisconsin needs to have two accredited medical schools
– one in Milwaukee and one in Madison. Given the level of investment
on the Madison campus, however, it seems unlikely that this situation will
ever change. It is an equally legitimate concern, though, that the Madison
campus may be over-reaching by proposing large buildings in an area with obvious
physical limitations and arguing that all of these structures are necessary
to retain its accreditation. No one would argue that if the medical school
lacks adequate teaching space, it should not be built; but reasonable people
can certainly argue that the new academic buildings should be reasonably sized,
and designed to replace within their walls the parking spaces that are lost
because of where they have been sited on the campus. Accreditation is simply
not a justification for parking ramps on the West Campus.
Over and above all of the issues discussed herein is a larger and more important
question: if building out the West Campus as it has been proposed creates
gridlock at the gateways then what has been achieved? The report submitted
by City staff (page 5) states it more generally – are there limits to
development that must be recognized? Given the constraints of its unique geography,
perhaps the West Campus should be developed with less intensity in order to
preserve its setting and accessibility. There is simply no logic to building
a world class facility if people can't get there.
In conclusion, we believe that the time is not right for approving the proposed
parking ramp on Lot 76. Even if it can demonstrate a need for a stand-alone
ramp of this size
on the West Campus, the University should be asked to first:
1. Find a location that is not in the “minimal
development zone” or any other environmentally sensitive area of the
campus,
2. Obtain the required air quality permit from the Wisconsin DNR,
3. Complete the recommended improvements to nearby intersections and the pedestrian
and bicycle networks,
4. Demonstrate that it is doing everything in its power to encourage its employees
to choose not to drive to campus, and
5. Develop a Transportation Master Plan for the entire campus showing where
such a ramp fits into the overall plan for parking, and
6. Pursue an Inter-Governmental Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding with
neighboring jurisdictions to address the various impacts of development proposals
on the West Campus.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our point of view. Please include this document in the submission from the Joint West Committee to the reviewing city agencies.
home | about | events | news | local resources | business | contact