Dear Editor,

I have been concerned about the lack of transit planning for our Northside as we are planning for housing, jobs, and focusing on transit-oriented development throughout all of our recent planning processes. It is woven into the comprehensive plan.

It seems that transit should be more integrated into this process, and I have not been able to sort out why it is still seemingly not important to include the Northside in transit planning for the BRT. We get a ‘fluid’ response that the route could be Sherman or Packers. With few (4) BRT stops on the north route, not located every quarter mile as on other routes, and that dead end at Sherman Avenue and head to the airport or on Packers. This leaves out many current and future riders of BRT who reside on the Northport corridor, where ridership could be well expanded. An express bus route is not the BRT. 

I recently read the report that was completed in 2013 related to infill and redevelopment. It based the decision to not plan for the north route mostly due to the speculation that there just was not enough land available for redevelopment along North Sherman Avenue. I have heard at public meetings that we lack ridership. In that assessment report, three locations were shown for redevelopment potential, one has since been redeveloped into apartments with a still vacant commercial space, likely due to limited street parking for customers. The BRT route-decision matrix was based on availability of land for redevelopment and placed the number of potential housing units for the north BRT route along North Sherman Ave. at 600 in 2013.

Fast forward to 2020, with a projected 4,000 new units of housing and 4,000-plus residents both on North Sherman Avenue and along Commercial and Packers. And I wonder, where is the transit-oriented planning for the Northside now that things have changed so drastically? I understand that the current focus for the city is South Madison and the Capitol East area but we do not live in a vacuum. Due to changes on East Washington, we are facing the absorption of a massive amount of transportation related vehicles to the Northside. The planned Metro facility move to Madison’s Northside to free up the land on East Washington for the Capitol East redevelopment project impacts our Northside. The move of the MG&E fleet and equipment impacts our Northside. The South Madison plan also impacts our Northside as I hear stories of gentrification, rising rents and evictions happening more and more on Madison’s south side. A sign of challenges to come as the push to gentrification will cause undue hardship to our neighbors. 

As I discussed with Tom Otto at the Jan. 30, OMSAP meeting, I am asking for transit freedom for all of Madison’s citizens. We all should be able to walk out of our front doors and be able to consider all manner of transit options:  Walk, bike, bus or car? How will I safely move through the city today? Right now, because of an outdated report, we are being held captive to a premise that is no longer valid, and is causing us undo harm in terms of not being able to truly create the transit-oriented new community that could be wonderful for all of Madison’s residents. How can we meet the goal of creating a walkable neighborhood, a walkable transit-oriented city, when Northside residents are denied the opportunity to be involved in the planning of BRT North route?  

The current planning process for the OMSAP has been awkward and not engaging of the public but rather landowners, developers and the 910 Mayer LLC investors. The public open house meeting Jan. 30 was appalling as we experienced complete disregard for public input, when there clearly were people interested in asking questions and engaging in public conversations. Filling out pieces of paper is not public engagement. 

I am writing to you to ask that the dialogue about the BRT North route is included now for planning routes, transfer station needs and locations, and the transit freedom we all welcome. As redevelopment plans for the OMSAP are being made, so too should all of the transit options be considered with the public involved. 

One is integral to the other.

Thank you,
Beth Sluys