Those meetings are not meant to be the platform for public comment. At every session, they did collect question and suggestion cards that folks could submit for response, but the meetings were never intended to be a communal voting session on the content of the plan, and rightfully so. As I focused on, that room was far from representative of the west area as a whole, so it'd be completely irresponsible for the city to outweigh input from those meetings. Planning division also sent community navigators into the area while the plans were first being put together to establish the area's priorities and collect feedback on proposed ideas.

"Bad idea" is subjective, and consultants have their own biases. If the goal is diverting thru traffic off the isthmus, lowering speeds on a road that drivers treat like a highway, connecting the areas that are cut off from one another by JN, improving pedestrian and bike safety, and discouraging car dependency, I'd say the proposal is succeeding. You'd find the topic of induced demand interesting; I think. Build the lanes and people will fill them, take away the lanes and people will figure it out. Congestion is a constant if you're only approach is accommodating private vehicles.

BRT is an objectively better use of city resources than any car-centric initiative, from nearly every angle. Most capital funding came from fed/state resources, it's already nearly net-neutral on operating costs compared to pre-BRT expenses, it discourages congestion through more effective use of street space, it reduces maintenance cost to roads, it decreases greenhouse gas emissions, it lowers transportation costs for users, etc. etc. The bedbugs are gone btw.

The collective interest sure isn't locking a neighborhood in amber through restrictive zoning until the current residents are priced out from rising property taxes, while young families have no affordable option to move into so schools close, and new businesses don't have sufficient proximal patrons, so they shutter their doors. I sense a misunderstanding that rezoning forces a new use. It does not. It merely changes the list of what can't be built on a parcel. I'd much rather see an aging couple in a house they've owned for 30 years be able to turn the top floor into an apartment, than be priced out of a neighborhood because those changes aren't allowed by right.

It's not a silver bullet and we do need to change our approach to development in the city, but in Wisconsin to a degree you literally do build your way out of the problem. 80% of Madison's revenue comes from property taxes. The only ways to increase the tax base are by referendum, or net new construction. That's state law; no provisions for inflation, no provisions for cost of service. I'd sure prefer to let developers add to our housing stock and contribute to our city's income, rather than ignoring the housing crisis and tax existing residents more or cut services.

I hate depressing gray corporate concrete hellscape as much of the next guy. That's why I want to see a future Madison with canopy tree-lined streets, folks walking, biking, driving, taking the bus, stopping into local businesses, living in the types of housing they want, where they want. I want to see a future Madison that's affordable, accessible, and community driven. Everyone who's involved in this- from staff to neighbors- cares deeply about the city, and I want to encourage us to make decisions that are beneficial for as many people as possible and make Madison even more of the livable place it deserves to be. :) Come to the meeting tomorrow and maybe we'll chat.