Midvale Bike Lane Survey Review

Resurfacing Background

Midvale Blvd north of Mineral Point Rd is going to be resurfaced in 2026. Resurfacing is relatively low cost since it involves only a new layer of asphalt and painting new lane lines. There may be light curb work done, but the overall road geometry is left alone. By resurfacing in 2026, the City hopes to delay a full reconstruction of Midvale for 10-15 years. The full reconstruction costs much more and includes stormwater, utilities, curb, medians, sidewalks, etc.

Plans to add bike lanes to Midvale Blvd go back to 1975, but the curb-to-curb width north of Mineral Point Rd isn’t wide enough for bike lanes and on-street parking and two vehicle lanes in each direction. South of Mineral Point Rd, the road is a bit wider and the City long ago painted a shared bike + parking lane there.

In 2023, the City first explored converting parking lanes to bike lanes as a Safe Streets For All (SS4A) project. In late 2024, a combined resurfacing + bike lane project was introduced. In summer 2025, the City sent out a public survey asking for feedback on three options for bike facilities:

• option 1 paint bike lanes on Midvale Blvd and remove street parking from most of the road.
• option 2 move bicyclists to a quiet side street and have them cross multi-lane University Ave and Midvale at un-signalized intersections.
• option 3 make no changes to Midvale, but do make minor improvements to Mineral Point Rd crossings at Segoe Rd and Owen Dr.

This survey had serious flaws. Its three “options” were not remotely equivalent: options 2 & 3 were minor projects on existing bike routes, while option 1 was the rare chance to fix a 50-year old bike route gap. The options were also presented with technical jargon and diagrams rather than visual renderings, which may explain the large number of respondents who misunderstood what was being proposed. The survey’s creators also favored option 3, as evidenced by the bias in the “pros and cons” listed for each option.

The survey generated record-setting amounts of public input – around 2500 responses and 1400 written comments. The results were presented at the Sept 20 Transportation Commission (T.C.) meeting. Below is a summary:

Option 3 was the clear winner in the survey, yet the T.C. voted for option 1 because it was the only one that addressed the City’s long-established area plans and transportation policies. I.e., it was the only option that improved bicycling in the area.

City Alders all spoke and voted strongly against option 1 because the loss of street parking would affect about sixty households. The meeting recording is worth watching (Alders and T.C. discussion happens around the two-hour mark). The Alders will now try to overturn the T.C. recommendation at Common Council. In describing her fight to overturn the T.C. vote, Ald Regina Vidaver cites “the overwhelming opposition of the public” to option 1.

Is that true?   Was there really overwhelming opposition to option 1, bike lanes?  To test this, I and a few volunteers cataloged all 723 written responses from people who listed option 3 as their main choice. Here is the raw spreadsheet for anyone to check the work or do their own analysis. Option 3 was analyzed because it was the option chosen by nearly everyone!  It was chosen by bike-lovers and bike-haters. It was chosen by those wanting to preserve street parking and by those concerned for pedestrian safety. It was chosen by people with amazingly poignant and detailed ideas about traffic engineering, as well as those venting about no-turn-on-red signs. Option 3 was a very big tent!

Below is a summary of our findings with select quotes.

Analysis of responses to option 3

I am really excited about the possibility of these improvements

Option 3 provides an even safer route for an existing route many already take, including middle school students, due to the biking lanes already present on Segoe

Owen Drive is a main pedestrian walking route for children living in the Sunset Village neighborhood as they walk to School (at Queen of Peace or Midvale Elementary). Improving that intersection along with the proposed pedestrian safety improvements to Midvale would make a huge positive impact to the walkability/bikability for residents and commuters alike.

This shows 11% of respondents understood the proposed crossing improvements along Mineral Point Rd at Owen and Segoe, and that they are very worthwhile. At the T.C., City Engineering acknowledged these improvements would likely happen regardless of Midvale resurfacing.

But the fact that 89% of responses made no mention of the improvements suggests that option 3 was a protest option. I.e., it represented the least change, the least cost, the closest to the status quo. For many who chose option 3, its improvements were beside the point.

And half of them also made negative mention of Segoe’s protected lanes, Whitney Way’s parking removal, BRT lane changes, no-right-turn-on-red signs, etc:

Listen, you pencil-necked bureaucrats, you’re at it again, aren’t you? 

For God’s sake leave Midvale alone and leave something un-f’d up.

Stop harming people who need to drive vehicles in favor of virtue signaling.

The Segoe redo is a disaster for driving and there are virtually no bikes that use it.

11% mistakenly believed option 1 would remove vehicle lanes or erect concrete protected buffers.

I oppose any options that reduce traffic lanes on Midvale

The Option 1 plan seems to mimic what was created on Segoe Rd from University Ave to Regent Street

if you add bike lanes that block cars from being able to pull over to let emergency vehicles though, YOU will have blood on your hands!

This misinformation was common on social media, and probably resulted from the survey’s technical jargon and lack of visual renderings.

To be clear, option 1 adds a simple painted bike lane and does not remove any traffic lanes.

22% mentioned street parking.

This is the main opposition to the removal of street parking needed to add bike lanes. This group is discussed in more detail later on. For a third of these responses, parking was their one and only one concern.

Losing parking on Midvale is not fair to homeowners.

People living on Midvale need to be able to have on street parking, don’t take it away as you did on Whitney Way. 

The residents who pay property taxes to the city should take priority over construction projects that will benefit others that do not live there and also decrease those residents’ home values

16% of respondents self-identified as bicyclists.

1% preferred the status quo, 4% would support a bike lane if it were protected (like N. Segoe), and the other 11% felt that since they don’t ride on Midvale, no one else needs to either.

I personally don’t like biking busy streets so that’s why I’m against option

I am a biker and I will always choose a route that is less hazardous than going on Midvale. Even if you make improvements I wouldn’t use them. 

as a biker, I never felt Midvale Blvd was a safe option for bike riding.

6% mentioned cost

It is fiscally irresponsible to undertake another expensive project so close to the recently completed Segoe Rd. project.

The city of Madison would be extremely short sighted to undertake such a large project at the taxpayer’s expense while benefitting only a handful of cyclists.

How can this be in a supposed stretched budget? This mayor overspends my tax money

The survey did not discuss costs, other than mentioning that cost savings was a benefit of option 3. The City budget shows $2.75M to resurface Midvale Blvd and implement all pedestrian crossing upgrades and signal improvements. The cost of the three bike options are not broken out, but an educated guess is $150k for option 1, or $50k for options 2 or 3. I.e., all are less than 5% of the project budget.

To put $2.75M into perspective, consider that Rimrock resurfacing is $1.1M for a similar length and width, while Virginia Terrace resurfacing is $2.6M for a road half as long and half as wide. These projects have a lot of cost variability.

25% were “nanny” responses.

These responses believe they’re looking out for the interests of bicyclists by discouraging them from riding on Midvale. These respondents ignored the many reasons why bicyclists might want or need to take Midvale.

Directing bike traffic to nearby, less-traveled streets looks like a better option that will be safer for both bicyclists and motorists.  

Keep us safe and keep us off Midvale. 

Best move the bikes to neighborhood streets parallel to Midvale.

30% of responses seem to be pure protest votes against the City, against bicycling, or in favor of car-only roads.

This group of responses does not mention street parking, nor do they say anything favorable about safety improvements, alternate bike routes, or crossing improvements. They show little understanding of the resurfacing project nor the options presented by the City engineers. They also show little concern for the problems of the current road (e.g., speed) and for neighbors who live, park, walk, and bike in the area. Basically, they just want to yell.

This is why people hate you. You and your clipboards, your “community input” meetings where the same three NIMBYs show up to whine.

too.much is spent on idiotic accommodations for bikes.

Construction on Midvale for pedestrians is a waste of money and time

These are valid voices, of course. But are they constructive? Do they deserve the same weight as the other thoughtful comments, especially when many interpret the survey as a democratic vote?

If those 30% of pure protest responses are excluded, the “overwhelming opposition of the public” claim withers and options 1 & 3 are left with similar public support:

The case for bike lanes

Plans for Midvale bike lanes have been firm for fifty years – 1975 Madison Bikeway long-term plan, 2000 Bicycle Transportation Plan (pg 72), 2014 Hoyt Park Neighborhood Plan (pg 63), 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan (pg 40), and 2024 West Area Plan (pg 24).  Of the sixteen roads identified in 2000 as having the “greatest need for bicycle facilities,” all but Midvale and Gammon have already been addressed.

Real bike usage data (see map below) show that:

• Bicyclists use Midvale Blvd in high numbers today, even though it has no official bike facility.
• For bicyclists crossing University Avenue, Midvale Blvd is by far the most popular place to cross in the two miles between Whitney Way and Highland Ave.
• Of bicyclists traveling north or south of Regent St, slightly more choose Midvale Blvd than the alternate routes on Segoe or Owen.

Segoe and Owen are both excellent bike routes, but they do not serve all riders and all destinations:

• Midvale is where the shops, groceries, schools, hardware stores, banks, medical offices, restaurants and library all are. Midvale is part of a 15-minute city.
• Midvale is the shortest and most intuitive connection between the Southwest Path, the University Ave / Shorewood Path, and the Regent / Kendall bike boulevard.
• Segoe & Owen alternate routes can also be longer, slower, steeper, and require crossing busy Mineral Point Rd, Midvale Blvd, and/or University Avenue without a stoplight. They are also unintuitive to those new to the area, navigating by GPS, or only familiar with major roads.

Below is the biking data from Strava, an activity tracker used by many athletes and commuters. This data is very good for seeing how popular different routes are, but it is not good for counting the number of bicyclists. Click the image for a better view.

The case for on-street parking

Nearly every major road from University Ave to Monroe St has had parking removed or restricted at some point in the past. Here is how Wisconsin State Journal reflected on Regent St rush hour parking removal back in 1960:

This has hurt some merchants and regrettably so, but the council has acted for what it feels to be the greater good.

A policy, to be valid, must be applied impartially. That means Regent St., as well as the many other streets in the city where parking has been restricted.

If the policy isn't applied impartially, then it had better be discarded, and we'd better remove rush hour restrictions from other streets as well...

Every City must weigh the needs of thousands of daily motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus-riders against the needs of the adjacent landowners. In business districts that lack off-street parking, the economic aspects often win out and influence road designs, as happened on S. Park Street with BRT. In residential districts, especially those with ample off-street parking, the homeowner resistance usually loses out to City policy and plans.

Madison policy has favored transportation over parking since at least the 1950’s, and that policy is now enshrined in the Complete Green Streets modal hierarchy.

In the Midvale survey, 161 responses (22%) were in favor of preserving parking, with most comments mentioning the homeowners of the sixty properties south of Regent St:

We have elderly family with mobility issues that will no longer have access to our home.

Removing the Midvale parking will create an inconvenient and dangerous situation for guests and contractors visiting Midvale residences.

Option 1 is unfair to the numerous homeowners on Midvale.  Being completely unable to park on the street outside their homes would be a hardship. 

The City did numerous counts over two years showing that those homeowners rarely use street parking. How does that fact square with the homeowner pleas to preserve parking?

• An examination of the sixty houses shows that nearly all have garages and at least two off-street parking spaces. Most have yard space to add more parking and some have already done that.
• All affected homes are less than a block (600′) from off-street parking on quiet side streets.
• During public meetings in 2023 and in early 2025, multiple residents explained the low street parking rates were due to the fact that cars get hit when they’re parked on the street.
• Crash data from Community Maps confirms that. It shows 17 crashes with parked cars along Midvale in the past 15 years. For comparison, the similarly long stretches of Regent & Bluff had twelve crashes, Mineral Point Rd had four, Owen had five, and Segoe had zero.

(That brings up the topic of Midvale Blvd speed and safety that was mentioned by at least 13% of respondents. They were near unanimous that the street is becoming unbearable to live near. All wanted the City to do more to control speeds and reckless driving.)

The homeowner protests are real and sincere, but also a bit hollow given how little they use street parking, how much off-street parking they have, and how hazardous it is to park on the road. I wonder how they feel about nearby Mineral Point Rd where there is practically zero usage of street parking. I also wonder about fairness and impartiality: don’t people who live in no-parking areas of Regent St or Commonwealth or Glenway also have contractors, guests, or elderly family with mobility issues? And most importantly, I wonder if this is really an issue of hardship, or is it one of convenience?

I also wonder if the the public would be so defensive of street parking if this project was adding a motor vehicle lane rather than a bike lane… What would the survey results look like then?

The case for compromise

At the T.C., the project was presented with no room for compromise. That’s a shame because there are options.

For example, empirical and anecdotal data suggest that Midvale bike lanes are needed most between Regent St and University Avenue. That’s the business area around Hilldale Mall with many businesses and apartment buildings. One compromise could be to only add bike lanes on that stretch.

Or consider that Midvale Blvd south of Regent St is a big hill. Since northbound downhill bikers travel faster and are more in need of lane space, another compromise might have a bike lane only in the northbound direction.

Several survey responses suggested widening the Midvale sidewalks into paths, like the path along Hammersley Rd. That’s far too costly for the resurfacing project and would also require tree removals and/or yard encroachment. But if there’s enough buy-in from the homeowners, maybe the Alders could drive this idea forward.

I’m personally not a fan of any of these compromises, but politics involves concessions. At this point, it’s for the Alders to figure out and they should be thinking about all available options.

Last word: Shared bike + parking lanes

Any compromise will leave gaps where bikers will need to ride in unofficial 9′ shared bike + parking lanes that are even narrower than the 10′ shared lanes Midvale has today south of Mineral Point Rd. The image below shows today’s lanes in white compared to the future lanes in purple. Talk about a door zone!

NACTO frowns on shared bike + parking lanes, but Wisconsin likes them. The 2004 Bicycle Facility Design Handbook (pg 2-14) specifies 12′ minimum width while the 2003 Bicycle Planning Guidance (pg 39) specifies 14′. Madison’s 10′ lanes are really small but better than nothing.

A design point is the right-side painted line. Drivers naturally expect bikers to stay to the right of it, but that’s not always possible and bikers often find themselves in sketchy and uncomfortable situations. At those times, it’d almost be better to NOT have that right-side painted line.

This point brings to mind survey response no. 491:

I observe that the few cyclists who do chose to use  Midvale Boulevard seem to be intentionally making a point.  They either occupy a full  traffic lane, or swerve out into traffic around parked cars.  They seem to be engaged  in dangerous performance art or protest.

I guess one person’s survival skill for navigating bad infrastructure is another person’s performance art!