lots of assumptions. i actaullly have some banana flavored rolling papers if yer interested....

Hey kid ya gotta a banana for me?

kid thanks for the digs:) Just saying if you were SO concerned about this incident why on earth would you feel the NEED to run to the computer and express your angry and disbelief of the actions you just witnessed and place it on a blog? Seems a little counter productive if you ask me. Anyway you never stated in your rant that you took down the license plate and took responsible measures in calling the police to report the incident. So, that being said I just thought that you didn't do that. I'm sure if you would have you would have stated that in your rant. If I'm wrong I do apologize. I just thought that you would have stated that in your rant to show people that you did the right thing.

Best option:
Do nothing

Description: Leaves the crossing as is.
Cost: None.
Pros: Taxpayers do not have to foot the bill for a crossing at the intersection.
Cons: None of the safety concerns are addressed. Pedestrians cross at their own risk.

If vehicle doesn't follow traffic rules and hits pedestrians, then file lawsuit.

whybesad yer a chimp. a)how does this have ANYTHING to do with me and my love for marijuana?? you peeps keep bringin it into discussions as much/more than i do. b)how do you know i didnt write the tag/call the cops and c)you know where you can go;)

+1 for B.A.S.T.E.

Spanky: Do you mean a "need" like the City Council says the Children's Museum is? Or, do you mean like a real need--like paying for housing, gas, and food? The two have gotten mixed up lately.

Is the tunnel a want or need? Is it going to better the community as a whole? Home foreclosures are up. People are having a hard time making ends meet thanks to the higher costs of food and energy and taxes. It's not a good idea to keep raising taxes on people. People are saying it's only eleven dollars well eleven dollars for this and twenty dollars for the aquatic center and ten dollars for the childrens museum it starts to add up. It's only benefiting a small number of people.

Most frequent bicyclist know that in regard to motor vehicles, there is no intelligent life onboard. You see people inside, but they are not aware of where they are or what they are doing. I saw one sitting at a green light putting on makeup last week.

You see them in lively conversations on the phone, texting, or looking intently at other occupants to more effectively converse I guess.

The sweet little old lady who can't see over the steering wheel and doesn't use turn signals because they did not exist when she took her driving test, and her family doesn't have the heart to take her keys away.

The 20 sec stare down at a 4-way stop with the BMW boom car operator which could have been avoided with the utilization of a turn signal.

No, the occupants of these sensory deprivation capsules cannot hear, smell, or feel the ride, so they are not fully aware of what is going on outside their 4,000lb shells.

All bicyclist especially the infrequent riders need to know that these large, clumsy, motor vehicle livestock that race from one light to the next are not aware of where they are and what they are doing.

Bicyclist that assume that the cattle are paying attention, when in fact they may stampede at any moment, will not survive long.

The flashing lights at this intersection cause more harm than good because the trail users are given a false sense of security and assume that there is intelligent life onboard the cattle to perceive that the lights are on, and people are crossing.

My recommendation, take out the lights, cancel the tunnel, trail users wait at the crossing for an opening just like any other un-controlled intersection.

Join B.A.S.T.E.
Bicyclist Against Silly Tunnel Expense.

I agree with you, whybesad. Kid, I don't doubt what you're saying, but I still do not support that tunnel. Pedestrians need to wait until it is absolutely safe to cross any street. This means not even attempting to cross until there are NO cars coming. Especially if you have children. I'm sure this may seem inconvenient to a lot of the trail users, but too bad. I think that's a huge motivator behind the support for this tunnel. I spoke to someone in favor of the tunnel last week. He said that having to stop and wait interrupts the "flow" of the trail. Too Bad.
+
Personal responsibility on both the drivers and the pedestrians part is what is needed. I hope to see people take a more proactive approach and start writing down these license plates at every intersection--not just the E. Milwaukee Street crossing.
+
The Gazette has been saturated with articles relating to economic issues lately. Poverty affecting all of Janesville. While some of you maintain that this bike tunnel will only cost $11.00, it is still dangerous to assume that everyone can afford it. It is also dangerous to assume that this is the only area in town that is worthy of a tunnel. There are potential dangers lurking at every corner. There is very little that can be done about that, as dangers have always existed. The real issue is the lack of responsibility on both the pedestrians and the drivers. Don't build this tunnel. It will be a shrine endorsing irresponsible behavior.

Maybe instead of rushing to get on the computer and complain you should have taken down the license plate of the car and called the cops.

Ya sure ya weren't seeing things kid? Maybe smoking a funny cigarette? Not sure how a mother wouldn't wait for traffic to stop in both directions while she has her child with her.

isn't it grand how the north or northeast side of janesville always gets what it wants. I tried to get better traffic control at rockport road and afton road 2 years ago, andf the city council shot the idea down. this is just another prime example of the council doing exactly what it pleases regardless of the thoughts or needs of the people living inthis community. business and money first and people last

LUCKILY I DONT HAVE YOUR EVIDENCE!! THIS IS TRUE. MY HEART IS STILL RACING. I JUST WITNESSED EXACTLY WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. IT WAS A MOM ON A BIKE PULLING HER CHILD IN A CARRIER. THE LIGHT WAS FLASHING YELLOW, 2 CARS STOPPED AND A THIRD ONE COMING UP. BOTH PEEPS AT FAULT. BIKER DID NOT WAIT FOR ALL TO STOP AND DRIVER DID NOT STOP AT YELLOW UNTIL IT WAS ALMOST TOO LATE FOR WHATEVER REASON. I SWEAR THE CAR ACTUALLY BUMPED THE CARRIER. I REALLY TRULY CANT BELIEVE HOW CLOSE IT WAS...STILL. LISTEN TO ME COUNCIL. ITS INEVITABLE. AND YES, EVERY INTERSECTION NEEDS ONE. NOT NOW, BUT EVENTUALLY WHEN FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. ASK THAT MOM RIGHT NOW HOW MUCH SHE WOULD PAY FOR A TUNNEL. IM NOT RELIGOUS BUT ILL THANK WHOEVER THAT THIS TRAGEDY WAS AVERTED. BUT HOLY S**T WAS IT TOOOOOOO CLOSE.

ok my comment was a bit over done In reality i could careless. Have a good weekend.

Nanny Nation No Thanks
Whomever posted the idea of speedbumps.
Ask the snow plow drivers in winter how brillant of an idea that would be.

Get back to the basics. Use common sense be curtious. Urban planning is a joke. janesville is a nice small town.

There are a lot of "free money" grants out there. Tax and spend liberal Baldwin
projects for cities to fall sucker to.

the council needs to take care of the real issues. And will take care of biking and driving.
there have been no deaths.
How would these people survive if they lived in a big city.
This issue is a joke. I'm embarresed to learn that our council is dumb enough to take heed of what Baldwin would be pushing.Truly dissapionting.

Instead on taking care of real issues

BBB - the trail follows the greenbelt, so the design obviously followed that instead of roads.

---

Ride today took me through that intersection once again. I stopped and waited about 10 seconds. Cars stopped and waited (thanks!) and I went with no problem whatsoever.

ok this is going to sound silly, but with the roundabout already approved- won't that slow the traffic down enough and the tunnel not needed? I use the bike trail all the time and yes the intersection can be dangerous, but no dangerous than any other busy streets (like Wright Rd or Ruger?)
I do like the idea of speed bumps for the motorists to help control their speeds a little, I know I hate driving over them. And to the person who didn't understand the speed bumps- it isn't on the section of the bike trail that cyclists and pedestrians/rollerblades would use- it be for the cars approaching the trail crossing.
+
re: cyclists on sidewalks. and the link provided in one of the posts stated- bikes belong on roads not sidewalks. I bike alot. While riding on the road does not always make me feel safe (drivers too close to me), the sidewalk does not have enough room if someone is walking. and as also mentioned if the sidewalk is used along the bikepath it has been made wider for that purpose.
There are certain small sections on my commute to work that I hop on the sidewalk (and yes it happens to be at Wright Rd and Milwaukee as I head back towards the bike trail.
I don't know the best solution for this, but maybe between the roundabout and speedbumps, that would make it safer.

MOC0428 said: "I believe only 600 or so of the GMer's actually live in Janesville, the rest are scattered througout, Walworth County, Dane County and Green County."

You may be correct, but I haven't seen a hard count of the Janesville's GM residents. Don't forget LSI, Lear, Gilman (thoug not related to the GM closing), and the few folks who work for the rail line. While I agree that the closing will not effect Janesville as much as some people think, there is still a lot we don't know. Even if workers don't live in Janesville, they probably spend some of their wages here, so even non-residents will effect Janesville when they stop coming to Janesville for work. Coupled with the current recession (yes, we are in one), I think fiscal restraint is reasonable.

The closing of GM wasn't even in the equation when this project was announced. Now it is, for me at least. From the beginning, I haven't been convinced that the expenditure is justified, when there is another, less costly, alternative. Even the available grant money is somebodies tax dollars.

Reducing lanes is the best alternative to the tunnel. Reducing the lanes from Wright Road to Hwy 14 would also reduce speeds at the Wuthering Hills intersection, which the city has said is the second most dangerous of it's type in Janesville (two lanes crossing four lanes uncontrolled).

As I said below, Milwaukee Street doesn't have enough traffic to justify four lanes from Wright Road to Hwy 14. The city planning dept. published that information when a study was done after the traffic death at the Wuthering Hills intersection. Four lanes actually gives drivers a false sense of safety, so more drivers speed. The lane reduction concept was applied by adding dedicated bike lanes to the south end of Milwauke Street going into downtown, and the north end of Wright road. I certainly notice that I am more aware of my driving speeds on those sections, because the road is effectively narrower. The same thing could be accomplished on Milwaukee Street by adding a middle turn lane and reducing the driving lanes from four to two.

pwrtrp: Maybe for somone like yourself! I would guess you're the type that is making us PRO tunnelers speak up!

+

A traffic study was completed after the accident last year. The study showed the the amount of traffic East of Wright Road does not warrent the use of 4 lanes.

+

There are also a lot more than just a handful or two of bikers that go through there. If you are going to comment at least do so with some thought behind your words, or was there??

Is bike tunnel best option? No, what engineer design this trail to come in the middle of the block of such a busy road.

billnewbie, your point is right on!

Hannah was responding to my comment that if we are going to have a campaign against inattentive driving, we need to include car seat safety as well.

i have!!

Do you really think all this blogging makes a difference? The people you should be talking to is the city council. Raise your concerns there...where the people might actually take your comments seriously.

moco428- janesvillmom brought it up/

i am for the tunnel but id just like to say that those posting against it make some valid points. so id just like to thank you for sliding me from pro to neutral. now i can spend more time thinking about ways to educate people and end prohibition. thank you;)

Hannah: Are you on the right blog??? Did I miss something? How or where does the child seat inspection fit in with this article??

Zoom: Thanks for the reply. What do you think the city should do about the GM situation? Where will the ~$400K go to help this situation? No sarcasm intended in those questions. I just don't see the city coming to a screeching halt because of this. I believe only 600 or so of the GMer's actually live in Janesville, the rest are scattered througout, Walworth County, Dane County and Green County. I do understand that it will have an impact but I don't believe it will be as bad as some seem to think. If it were ~7000 jobs it would be different but GM has slowly been closing this plant for years thus reducing the impact of it closing entirely.

My point being that if we wait until the GM crisis is over there will be something new to worry about and it will be another reason not to solve the issue. When is the right time?

janesvillemom- i was a trained child seat inspector for "fit for a kid" makes you notice what people do with their kids. makes me ill. front seat NOT FOR UNDER 12 years old. i saw a vw jetta with SSSEEEEVVVVEEENNN poeple climb out of it and 2 were kids . WHAT IS WROnG WITH PEOPLE. the car only seats 5 and not even comfortably. see toddlers bounceing around the cab OBVIOUSLY not buckled in!! but that is a whole other issue!!!

http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/lates...

yes lets get our priorties straight!!!! tunnel, and museum first then ambulance! what ever city council!!

We obviously need many more tunnels in this community since we don't have enough ambulances. We can't have the wounded just laying about bleeding all over our shiny new sewer caps while waiting for the next free paramedic team.

"I would consider a "no tunnel option" if the lanes were reduced to 1 as the traffic analysis has indicated could happen. That in itself makes it much easier to negotiate. I have seen or heard of too many close calls not to do something about it.
I am a believer in Darwin but when motorists can't obey the law it is harder to swallow that theory. If everyone only travelled 35mph through this area and they stopped for flashing lights I wouldn't want the tunnel either. If you are a runner/biker that doesn't push the light or watch for traffic you deserve what you get. If you push the light, and look for traffic and someone decides they can't wait then hits you, that becomes an issue.
Unfortunately a police presence won't solve the problem, it would help but will never solve it. Something physically needs to be done in that area."

I completely agree with that.

"We never know what life has in store and if we constatnly wait for the "right" time, it will never happen."

In this case, WE DO KNOW what life has in store! The unknown economic issue of a few thousand people losing their jobs is EXACTLY why this should be put on hold. The city knows months in advance that GM (and their suppliers) will be closing. And the Council takes absolutley no steps to curtail any spending? I don't predict doom and gloom for Janesville, but to have seemingly no economic response to the closing, other than business as usual, just doesn't make sense.

By the way Wahoo, life isn't fair, never has been and it never will be.

I would consider a "no tunnel option" if the lanes were reduced to 1 as the traffic analysis has indicated could happen. That in itself makes it much easier to negotiate. I have seen or heard of too many close calls not to do something about it.

I am a believer in Darwin but when motorists can't obey the law it is harder to swallow that theory. If everyone only travelled 35mph through this area and they stopped for flashing lights I wouldn't want the tunnel either. If you are a runner/biker that doesn't push the light or watch for traffic you deserve what you get. If you push the light, and look for traffic and someone decides they can't wait then hits you, that becomes an issue.

Unfortunately a police presence won't solve the problem, it would help but will never solve it. Something physically needs to be done in that area.

wahoo: Your argument is weak at best. I don't use the city playgrounds so why should I support it? I don't use the pools so why should I support them? I don't use the cities transit service why should I support that? I don't believe in the Social Security System so why do I have to keep paying thousands of dollars into it?

+

My point is that not everyone uses every service and if we only built things that everyone used then nothing would ever get built because there will never ever be 100% agreement on all discussions.

+

Our community can't just put things on hold because of an unknown local economy issue. We never know what life has in store and if we constatnly wait for the "right" time, it will never happen.

If this is important to the group of people who use the bike trail, then they should have to raise the money! If the city tells one group that if they want something, then they need to raise the money. Giving this much money to one group and not the other is unfair. There has been to much money spent on the bike trail considering how few use it. I rarely see people using it.

As an opponent of the tunnel I have to say motorists are becoming aware and curtious. An incident last week, still makes me belive we need the tunnel, though. Three of the four lanes were stopped for the flashing light, a family of four was crossing(in front of me), Mom, Dad, stroller and training wheel bike began to cross when something fell. They all stopped so mom could pick it up, at that time, a truck flew through the open lane. Had an item not fallen out of the stroller at least two would be dead. BUILD THE TUNNEL BEFORE SOMEONE DIES!

The OBVIOUS solution is to take the $670,000.00 and HIRE more officers to CRACK down on these INATTENTIVE drivers. The amount of revenue that these new officers would generate would guarantee that they would have jobs in the future!!

Testerrific: If only life was so simple! Common sense goes along way, you're right but that doesn't solve the issue of somone traveling way to fast or being impatient with the other people that have already stopped.

I won't waste anymore of your valuable time.

By the way it isn't just the liberals that want this tunnel put in.

LaKennedy: The tunnel solution is a one time fee, and a very small amount per person at that. Let's look at your idea of enforcement alone. It is apparent we would need to add more enforcement because I'm sure they would spend more time at that location if they had the manpower. As I have seen posted here by others, lets add two officers for that area alone(not even close to reality). Those officers over time will cost more than the tunnel which in turn will cost you more in taxes. There will be new drivers emerging every year that won't have felt that sting of being pulled over on East Milwaukee. The city can police the area and slow people down but it's the drivers that haven't been pulled over that will still speed through there.

+

I see sport bikes doing 65+ mph on this road all the time. Do you understand how quickly something like that can come up on someone walking across the street?

Like thekid said "an ounce of prevention...."

And before anyone corrects me here in a futile attempt to detract from my cogent points, I absolutely meant to say that when crossing the street you should look "right...then left..then right again." But then again, Bill O'Reilly taught me how to cross the street. Fair and Balanced also lends itself to crossing a street. And I have only been hit by 34 cars in my life. But it was always their fault. And they were all dirty liberals.

I discussed this "tunnel" topic with a consultant friend of mine, who consulted with other consultants, and they came up with a great solution. If a car hits a pedestrian/jogger/biker who cannot grasp the concept of "look right, then left, then right", the driver of the vehicle is awarded $100 in credit toward reinvigorating downtown Janesville. This will solve two problems...(1) it will help reinvigorate downtown Janesville and (2) it will cut down on the number of selfish, self-absorbed jogging/bicycling knuckleheads out there that are more concerned with their "undeterred biorhythms by pausing to check for oncoming traffic" than learning how to "look right, then left...and then right again" before crossing a busy street. Maybe the city could offer the drivers who actually run over any of these people $200 dollars if they promise to make reservations at the "soon to be glamorous" Monterey Hotel in downtown Janesville. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..cough..LOLO...L...cough...LOLOL...no seriously though. The renovated Monterey Hotel in downtown Janesville will surely...cough..save the city. LOLOLOL..COUGH...ouch...coughed too hard there.

We used to have no problems crossing busy streets when we were kids. But then again, back then we didnt have people in 5,000lb vehicles chatting or texting on their phones, fiddling with GPS systems, using a laptop, etc, while driving. Even as kids we knew that a car ISNT gonna be able to stop on a dime and they may not even see us so we STOPPED and LOOKED before crossing teh street by foot or bike. Also we didnt listen to walkmans or mp3 players while riding a bike either like so many I see now.
Thing is now people are just off in their own little world while driving, walking or biking. I see quite a number of "bicyclists" just blowing stop signs, red lights, riding against traffic, darting in and out of driveways. My parents had a guy hit our car when we were going to the pool when he blew a stop sign coming down a hill.

Speed bumps on the trail? Could you imagine the roller bladers hitting them. Can you say lawsuit? Also I don't think speed bumps can be placed on a main roadway like that, without more special consideraton.
*
Hope they mark the construction area well if and when it begins, 'cause someone's going to hit it. Especially people from out of town who use that road.

This project should be approved by the voter-system not council. Can anyone say bring on the Mayor.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to install video cameras at the intersection where a pedestrian or bicyclist has a close encounter with rude drivers can just push a button of some sort that will submit the last 30 seconds or 1 minute footage to the police to report the incident and ticket the offending driver?

This tunnel isn't about building for the pedestrians and bicyclist. It's about the drivers not respecting the pedestrian laws. I think this city is taking the tunnel approach the wrong way. It's too bad we can't close off the intersection to pedestrians and bicyclist and route the path elsewhere. Or can we?!?!?

Wahoo_35 had the same idea I did - speed bumps. A few hundred dollars to have a city crew slap some asphalt on the street, paint it bright yellow and put up 2 warning signs. Put them on the trail as well to slow down bicyclists and skaters approaching the street.
.
Speed bumps will get the attention of the drivers, slow down traffic, and perhaps clean out some earwax of cellphone users. Put one far enough out to give inattentive drivers time to react to hitting them. Monitor the traffic with cameras and if one speed bump isn't enough to slow them down, put in a second set.

Just curious, but why is Tammy Baldwin "steering" money towards Janesville when this isn't even her district?

I hope everyone realizes this never would have been an issue at all unless money was steered towards our city by Tammy Baldwin (who I usually support). This grant is what made this whole ordeal possible. What I find frustrating is that this was never an issue to anyone before this money was an option. The bike trail is great, but bear in mind it is a recreational facility. Right now, it is irresponsible to fund this (especially since there is no evidence that it is anymore dangerous than crossing anywhere else in the city) not knowing what ramifications GM's leaving will have. Have you driven around the city lately? How many "For Sale" signs have you seen? The tax base will shrink. $11.00 doesn't seem like much to some of you now, but when was the last time a project came in on budget? Also, for those of you who haven't been paying attention, our city is in pretty bad shape. Tell a senior citizen that they won't be able to pay $11.00 towards their medication because you don't want to go down the street and cross at a stop light intersection. It may seem extreme to some of you, but make no mistake: it is reality for some of us. This isn't right. It doesn't even begin to address the real issue. Just because the majority of you use the bike trail in that area, what makes that intersection any more of a priority than the others? Certainly not evidence, as there hasn't been any accidents there. Am I saying we should wait for one? NO. I'm saying we should hit this issue head on with a crack down on inattentive drivers all over this city. I'm not against safety, just this tunnel that only addresses one very specific area.
+
Also, please bear in mind that this grant will still be available after we find out what the ramifications are of GM's leaving. Don't continue to have this "spend it now or lose it mentality".

I don't think most people would be so sensitive to the issue if whatitdo is correct. Some bike riders (not all) are very rude, they surly don't follow the rules of the road. I had witnessed a bike go through a very busy interection on sunday in Beloit, right through the red stoplight at 51 and Shopiere. The decision made (be it by bikers or walkers), to cross without checking both directions a couple of times before stepping out into the point of no return, are just that, their decision. Drivers need to be more alert but most of all, I'm going to agree with lakennedy, the cops should be on that crossing like flys on you know what. It shouldn't be up to the taxpayer when the city already has police the taxpayers are paying for.

Besides..... when I was a kid, crossing the street safely was one of the first things I was taught. It wasn't that hard to learn either. 35 yrs later I can still do it. If these people who are complaining about it can't grasp the concept ........ all I can say is Darwin.
Some of these issues are real life reasons that the kid who ate all the paste in Kindergarten never should have made it.

Speeds (not speads)-oops. Also consider the general safety of the trails. Remember the few instances where we had lewd behavior occurring on the trails. Should be considered when talking about the tunnel.

Too bad no one is commenting on this topic...Oh wait a minute, I was wrong!

I lived near the crossing on E. Milwaukee St. for several years. I also used the entire trail in Janesville. Maybe I should get my but back out there (excercise)!
*
The bikers pedestrians and the drivers, were and are all to blame for the attitudes, trust me on that one.
*
I feel the over pass would be safer and more scenic. The potential bad behavior of those using it might become an issue. The tunnel would be great, but there are security and safety issues still to come with that. But something has to happen. I hate the spending issue but it makes more sense than a children's museum does to me.
*
I watched literally hundreds of people almost get hit by cars. Some cars go near highway speads through there, and police can't always deter it. Many times vehicles came to long screaching stops!
*
Maybe more ideas are needed. I know I will brain strom if it can save money. But there are smarter people out there than me!

The tunnel idea is a waste of time and tax money. The whole argument for the tunnel claims that there is a safety issue, yes? When was the last time someone was injured at this intersection? Is the argument of convenience for the joggers and cyclists not having to interrupt their workouts valid? One would think that if these individuals were that concerned about their health they would take the time to ensure their safety as well when they crossed the street.
Someone earlier mentioned that Janesville was not cyclist friendly. I beg to differ. Two major streets (milwaukee and wright) have had the most insanely ridiculous set of bicycle lanes painted in. Both streets also have sidewalks no less. But I digress. Point is: The squeaky wheel is gonna get the grease folks and all the tax payers are going to have to dig. Thank you city council.

Don't waste the money. The rightous biker attitude is annoying. stay out of the way of cars AND OUT OF THE POCKETS OF TAX PAYERS.
I've seen some rude bikers scolding cars as they make everyone slam on the brakes. having a nice in your face road rage moment.
The more you spoil them the bigger deal they think they are.
Not that biking is a bad thing it's the bikers who are like "look at me I'm a big deal nanny nanny boo boo you can't hit me".

i realize we dont need a tangent but id have NEVER guessed someone would be against a childrens museum. if you both are against wasting tax money that much then you should BOTH be on my team:)

Another thing for those who are concerned about the financial aspect ask yourself one question. Would you spend $11 of your hard earned money to save 1 life, even if it was someone you have never heard of, will never meet and will have no interaction with in your life but by donating your $11 you will save their life? If the answer is what i think it is, it should be a non-issue to build this tunnel even if it saves 1 life 30 years from now its well worth it. At least in my point of view....

Children's Museum= long term money pit for tax payers.
I do agree with lakennedy on that issue, but...
Fixing E.Milwaukee Street bike crossing=SAVING lives and saving money from a lawsuit if someone does die there...the city can't claim they didn't know the crossing was dangerous!

While we're educating people about inattentive driving, I also want to add CAR SEAT laws to that campaign! The last person who nearly hit me at E. Milwaukee had a toddler in the front seat!

lakennedy - Not sure why you think the bike tunnel would only benefit a small amount of people. Which small amount of people are you referring to? It is public property and therefore everyone benefits from it. If people choose not to use it to their benefit, that is their loss. I have ridden the entire trail and can not wait for it to be expanded.

wait...lakennedy....the childrens museum NAUSEATES you?? wow.

we do need to do educate all drivers. la you keep asking for proof that this is a dangerous intersection. you are aware what youre asking for?? im with miltonalum. build em where ever feasible over time.

lakekennedy: "I refuse to accept the notion that this tunnel is a necessity based on no evidence of an accident, or of any indication an accident will occur here over anywhere else. It is ridiculous."
+
Would it take a death or near fatal accident then to accept the notion that its a necessity. Based on traffic studies you cannot dispute that a tunnel would be safer for pedestrians and motorists invlolved? Absolutely there are more than 1 location that could use such attention but the issue is this 1 intersection at this point. Just because there has not been a fatality at this location does not mean that we should turn our heads until one does, it needs to be prevented before it happens.

Sorry, I have this messed up with the Children's Museum. Both equally nauseate me.

Who is it directed at, justsome1here?

Unidentified: We already have that underground network of tunnels ... it's called the sewer!

This tunnel will benefit a small amount of people, addressing the real issue would benefit the city. Do you have any proof, miltonalum, why this area is so much more at risk than any other? There hasn't been an accident here. Look at Beloit Avenue: four lanes, no accidents. By your logic, that equals a tunnel. There's no end to it, all in the name of safety, of course.
+
I wonder, how did anybody live past the age of ten with all of the possible accident areas out there? I suppose a little thing called personal responsibility played a role. I understand the value of human life, but I refuse to accept the notion that this tunnel is a necessity based on no evidence of an accident, or of any indication an accident will occur here over anywhere else. It is ridiculous.
+
Furthermore, miltonalum, in every blog you've indicated that finances are not an issue. You couldn't be more wrong. You definitley don't speak for me. The vast majority of people I've spoken too off this blog page DO NOT want a tunnel. Right now, we can't afford it. Obviously that's not an issue with you, but I'd appreciate a little compassion. If you're interested in gauging public support, check out Yuri Rashkins blog page. Last I checked, the nay-sayers had it with 75%.

lakennedy - If you didn't say it then why do you think it was directed at you.

As posted on the Wisconsin DOT website:
Motorist reminders
*Bicycles are vehicles. They belong on the road.
*Cyclists need room to get around potholes, sewer grates and other obstructions.
*Leave at least three feet when passing bicycles, more room at higher speeds.
*Change lanes to pass any bicycle traveling in a narrow lane.
*Train yourself to scan for fast moving (it's hard to tell speed) bicycles and motorcycles in the opposing lane to you when turning left, and scan sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians and bicyclists using the sidewalk and crosswalk as a pedestrian. Always scan to your right side sidewalk before you leave a stop light or stop sign. And to the left and right side sidewalks when on a one-way street.
*Right turning motorists can be a problem, but taking the lane or more of the right portion of the wide curb lane can prevent this.
*Left turning motorists are the cause of most adult bicyclists’ crashes. Motorists claim not to see the cyclist who is traveling in a straight path in the opposite direction.

so in other words yes i agree its a problem but its another issue worthy of its own $11 if that makes sense....

In a perfect world, people would all stop for pedestrians and bikes, like they are supposed to and if they didn't the police would get them. We don't live in a perfect world, so we need some kind of solution to the crossing at E. Milwaukee...it doesn't have to be a tunnel, but something needs done BEFORE someone dies.
*
I would ALSO love to see the police enforce the laws and see a huge campaign for educating drivers about the laws and about the consequences of inattentive driving. I agree that drivers are rude ALL OVER this city and most other cities too!

inattentive poor drivers need to be remedied no matter what happens with this tunnel its not a "this or that issue" its something that needs to be addressed regardless.

Also traffic laws need to be enforced all over this city, it is Terrible and needs to be remedied with or without this tunnel so dont look at increased enforcement as a solution to this tunnel that needs to be done with or without this tunnel....

Or, miltonalum, we could use that $11 per person and put it towards the real issue: inattentive/poor drivers. This would help save lives all over the city, not just at this particular intersection. Do you not agree?

justsomeonehere: I hope that post wasn't directed at me. NO WHERE have I said that bikers don't have rights to the road. Clarify in your posts, please. "Educate YOURSELF" on my posts before you try to attack them.

lake kennedy: "miltonalum: that's an interesting point. what about the life that potentially could be lost while crossing Beloit Avenue? Is that not a human life that cuts it in your book? What about the one lost while trying to cross Ruger?"

Thats not the issue at hand, the issue is this specific location, but yes since you ask, If its deamed feasable i would be for building one at every major intersection where it could potentially save lives. Obviously one cant expect a tunnel crossing every back road in the city but a handful would be logical and definately worth the $11 per person per tunnel if it could save a life.

If you think that bike riders do not have any rights on the road I suggest you look up bicycle safety on this website and educate yourself. http://www.nhtsa.gov/

I'd say "donate your money to a real cause: fighting inattentive drivers". Donate your money to something that will help the entire city, not just E. Milwaukee Street.

They are breaking the law because pedestrians have the right of way. Always. This is a problem all over the city. It doesn't just affect the people who use the E. Milwaukee Street crossing. If you are interested in being a part of the solution, I suggest you pro-tunnelers out there spend some time contacting your local law enforcement agency (who's contact information I've listed in an earlier post) and let them know it. The only thing you're solving by putting in a tunnel is putting an extra burden on tax payers and making one intersection safe, leaving all others at "risk". Why not deal with the real issue here? Why is it so important that this one intersection, that has been the scene of NO accidents, has a tunnel?

Makes me wonder what everyone who says this tunnel is a waste of money, etc , etc. would say about it if someone donated the money to build it. My guess is you wouldn't care as long as you could use it without having to pay for it. I think of that everytime my neighbors who don't have a sidewalk on their side of the street, walk by my house on the sidewalk that I had to pay for. I really should not have a sidewalk anyway, since there is no clear evidence that sidewalks prevent injury. If there was, then every street in the city would have sidewalks on both sides of the street. What a concept!

Oops, I was thinking of E Racine.

Obviously, we need to enforce our traffic laws and that would reduce the risk at the Milwaukee St crossing, but not eliminate it. People who don't see the pedestrians are not breaking the law and that is one of the issues. Is it against the law to drive through a flashing yellow? I don't think so. So the people who don't stop even though the others have stopped, which is the other major issue here, aren't breaking the law either. (I don't know the exact laws so correct me if I'm wrong)

No. It crosses E. Racine at a stoplight. Ruger runs parallel to Racine. It doesn't have a stoplight.

The trail crosses Ruger at a stoplight, doesn't it?

So, you're assuming that these numbers exist? Your logic that there is any more of a risk here than at any other intersection doesn't stand up, either. There has been NO ACCIDENT here. Why does this area deserve more recognition than Ruger? Do you really believe that there won't be just as much if not more traffic on Ruger Avenue when school starts up?
+
A tunnel won't solve the real problem, which is irresponsible drivers. It's ridiculous that you all support this mediocre idea that addresses just one intersection instead of addressing the real issue. It's like you found out your "kid" is a dope addict and removing the lighters from your house in response.

lakennedy, your argument by extension that because there is a risk at one location means there is an EQUAL risk at any other location doesn't stand up to the slightest logic test.
.
I don't have the numbers. The city engineers do. They presented their findings to the council, which is how it works. If you want their study I'm sure that calling the city is one way to get that information.

whybesad i agree that it SHOULD be that simple. personal responsibility and all. but again....
.
two 14 year olds waiting to cross. one car stops in each direction. the kids see the third car coming and assume it will stop the same as the other two. only the driver in the third car is clicking send on his cell.....

Esteemed Lake, your absolutely correct. It seems when people step out of the rat race, if only briefly, that they become civil to each other. It gives me hope.

im aware what yer discussing lakennedy. im pointing out why spending the money is meritted. you admit there are a thousand reasons people drive inattentively. thats a thousand reasons someone may get hit crossing ANY road. 'financial crisis'. whats that chicken little??;) come on, money vs safety?? and is there something wrong with putting a tunnel at every intersecion possible in this city?? we dont have to do them all during the 'financial crisis' but one every 5 years, or whenever a grant is available isnt the worst idea. i just dont understand why you want proof that one is needed. proof in this case is human life. i sound old saying this;) but an oucne of prevention.....

whybesad- i have mentioned this before and am called STUPID for such an idea. guess youre STUPID too.

I agree Guardians...it's almost as though people who use the trail have a special "bond" in regards to being polite. It's probably a pleasant side affect to exercising!
+

janesvillemom: I respect your comments, and rest assured that I don't want anyone to die. The reason you feel that this intersection (and I'll assert that there are others) that are dangerous is because of inattentive/speeding drivers. That is the problem that needs to be rectified. Putting a tunnel in doesn't solve the real issue. The police need to solve it.
+
I agree wholeheartedly with Unidentifieds comment. Now is not the time to be spending money like this. I understand that there is a grant, but we'll still be paying the majority. Also, I ask that people abandon this "spend it or lose it" mentality. Why won't that same grant be available when we find out the exact ramifications GM's leaving will have on our city?

Enforce the law and people using the trail and that have to cross there look both ways left right and then left again and when there aren't any cars cross the street. Simple.

For the tunnel I say NAY! In answer to a few posts of distain for the bike path, the path is more than recreational. I commute to work via bicycle everyday that weather permits.

For one, I prefer riding bicycle over car, especially on this path which is one of the best in the State of Wisconsin. The woodchucks, squirrels, chipmunks, goldfinches, and even the big doe between E. Milwaukee and Ruger are all fantastic to see. The different scents of the wildflowers in the morning is fantastic...........you don't get to experience those things in a car, sitting at stop lights.

Commuting via bicycle is good for your health and saves a part of our 70% imported gas for the handicapped, out of shape folks that get winded walking from their air conditioned houses to their air conditioned car which carries them to their air conditioned workplace.

Sooner or later, someone racing down Milwaukee, dialing their cell phone, sending a text message, changing the DVD, or reaching for a beer, will take out a bicyclist or pedestrian, it's inevitable.

The problem with building this tunnel is not that this location is dangerous, but it is not the only dangerous location that intersects the bike trail. Where would the tunneling stop? Wright Rd, Business 11, Beloit Ave, Centerway, Rockport, etc....

Save the $670K, let's enforce the driving laws, especially where the average vehicle is in excess of 10 over, instead of blowing this amount of capitol in one shot, for one location.

When the petroleum runs out, or your monthly fuel bill costs more than the mortgage payment, leave the roar of the traffic behind. Please give the trail a try. It's a great way to start and end the workday.

You know what's really something about the trail? People say good morning and Hi to each other........how great is that?

I think my earlier half hearted attempt to be humorous on this subject was overlooked.
------
I think I speak for most of the people who are opposed to this project when I say the timing is bad not the concept. Ideally, we would have tunnels for every major trail crossing. However, considering our cities financial circumstances I would suggest this proposal be put on hold until we can get our financial situation under grasp. We have yet to see the outcome of GM’s departure (if they do), which could result in a huge tax levy increase for everyone and further unemployment. In addition, as posted by this paper, there are an increasing percentage of people in Janesville at or below the poverty level. Moreover, we were recently ranked as a top ten city for job losses. Bike tunnels, children’s museums, and skate parks should be secondary to our cities overall financial well being, which includes its fiscal management and ability to sustain its population. On the other hand, maybe the council feels the bike tunnel would double as a cozy place for Janesville’s homeless to sleep. The good old days are gone; the time when Janesville could spend endlessly. We are turning a new page when the focus of the city should be on job creation and maintaining our current existing infrastructure. If our money is managed properly now we can ensure our ability to fund projects like this bike tunnel and others in the future. In contrast, fiscal mismanagement now will ensure Janesville’s standard of living and well being continues to deteriorate in the future.

moco428- why is my debate against the tunnel unintellegient becausae I think if you look both ways before crossing and dont cross if there are ANY cars present?????? because it is so SIMPLE???? you have to spend millions to be complicated and intelligient??!!!

No one randomly picked THIS intersection for a tunnel. IT IS DANGEROUS. I'm sure they have studied it and I have personally witnessed several close calls. I can cross it sometimes with no problems, depending on the time of day, but there are times when it is very dangerous. I don't care what solution they choose, but the tunnel is what seems to be the first choice of the council. Most of all I want this problem solved BEFORE someone dies. I certainly don't want my kids or my husband (or anyone else's for that matter) to be the one who has to sacrifice their life to get the problem the attention it needs.

Kid: Get a pen and a piece of paper. Don't roll up any mother nature in the paper!!! Instead, write a nice long letter to your legislators demanding that cell-phone bans while driving be implemented throughout the state. There are a thousand reasons why people drive inattentively, we're not discussing those here. We're discussing the merits of wasting money on a tunnel when our city is in a financial crisis.

Stevev: Your support for this project stems for the possibility that someone may get hurt. No one has. That's a fact. If you really think that the possibility that someone may get hurt at this intersection warrants a tunnel, then you must agree that there is a possibility that someone could get hurt anywhere, thus warranting a tunnel system throughout the entire city.
+
If it is illegal for bicyclists to be on the sidewalk, and that the law is actually enforced, then why are bikers continuously riding on sidewalks? How could you even use the trail to get to places like work or school? The trail would literally have to be paved right up to the desired location.
+
I'll admit that there are awful drivers in this city. A proper response should not be to put in a tunnel, as it is comparable to putting a band aid on a bullet hole. Start cracking down on inattentive driving. The police need to be told that this is something we as citizens demand.
+
Kid: don't start.

two 14 year olds waiting to cross. one car stops in each direction. the kids see the third car coming and assume it will stop the same as the other two. only the driver in the third car is clicking send on his cell.....

How is my logic suggesting that we have a tunnel at every intersection? I have biked on the entire Janesville trail system and there is no other intersection that approaches the number of near misses than the Milwaukee Road crossing. I don't think there are any other crossings that require tunnels. My point is that by your reasoning we shouldn't take any safety precautions until there is some kind of accident-at any intersection. I don't understand how waiting for someone to get seriously injured or killed is a prudent way to decide whether or not a safety measure should be taken.

Finally, to answer your question on why we can't re-route the trail to the intersection of Milwaukee and Wright road-bikes are not supposed to ride on the side walk, so they would be in the road, and we know how much that annoys drivers. In other areas where the trail uses sidewalks, the walks are doubled in width.

I think the suggestion of an entire underground network of tunnels is excellent!! We could all live like little moles and be safe from auto traffic everywhere. In addition, we would then be safe from any potential nuclear disaster, tornados, or even terrorist attacks. Now this is forward thinking! Whoops, I said that out load, now the council will probably bring this idea up for consideration LOL.

LaKennedy: Good to see you finally made it on. You at least can present an intelligent argument unlike Hannah!

+

Pwrtrip: Can you read? The 6 cars were stopped and waiting as they are required to do by law. What else should he have done? Why is it the pedestrians fault that one of the six (already stopped) got impatient and decided to blow through anyway? If you didn't understand the situations don't commment on it.

miltonalum: that's an interesting point. what about the life that potentially could be lost while crossing Beloit Avenue? Is that not a human life that cuts it in your book? What about the one lost while trying to cross Ruger?
+
There is no evidence that there has or will be an accident here. No more than anywhere else. But, in the interest of potentially saving a human life the city council wants to raise taxes on an already over-burdened tax base. The logic doesn't cut it here. Because if your real concern is the possibility for an accident, then you should be equally conerned about that same possibility everywhere, thus lobby for a tunnel everywhere.

Or, on the flip side, according to your logic we should have stop lights at every intersection. We should have tunnels under every street. I suggest you buy a bubble if you're so concerned about safety. Either that or learn how to cross a street.

Stevev: the stoplight I proposed in an earlier post was to be on the intersection of Whuthering Hills and E. Milwaukee Street. There has been an accident there. A fatal one.
+
Nice try, though.

Also, not one of you pro-tunnelers can tell me why you can't go down to the stop lights at Wright Road and cross. What's the problem with that? It can't be laziness, as you're on the trail to exercise anyway. Is it inconvenience? Too bad.

So then why put stop lights at any intersections until there has been an accident there? Why have any safety measures in place or any emergency plans for situations. I guess we should just fly by the seat of our pants in leiu of spending money.....

Janesvillian: where are these numbers that the engineers produced? I'd love to see them.

Janesvillian: And the city engineers came up with these numbers in response to what? Not an accident, but the potential for one. If this particular intersection is so much more dangerous, then why hasn't there been an accident? The same potential exists at every intersection in this city. There have been people run over at other areas in the city, but a tunnel hasn't even been discussed there. Why?

Stevev: If we are to put in safety measures before anything happens, as your logic dictates, then you'd better start petitioning for a city-wide tunnel system. Something could happen someday, you know.

reasoning aside it is worth it regardless of the cost, you cant put a price on a human life. If it saves even 1 persons life be it death, paralysis from an accident its worth it and thats not debatable.

Build it!

lakennedy: city engineers came up with the original recommendation due to traffic levels on BOTH the bike trail AND E. Milwaukee.
.
luvujvl: You do realize that the $20 you're willing to pay for a billboard is MORE than your share of the tunnel? ($11 per person)

LakeKennedy: I know how to properly operate my vehicle (Wisc DOT defines a bicycle as a vehicle) and one of my comments mentions the fact that I use the intersection of Wright and Milwaukee frequently. As far as your comment on the article again I state that this has been debated for over a year and a decision has been made. The city council president was not in the majority during the vote and has been vocal. She has that right...as do those council members who voted in favor of it.

See everyone on the trail tonight. Stay safe. The blinking yellow means nothing...so to those who do not slow and stop for pedestrian traffic...think twice before an innocent person becomes a speed bump. In the words of Dennis Miller..."and I am outta here"...

Doesn't the volume of vehicles at a given crossing have something to do with the need for an alternative to a standard crosswalk? Why did they build a tunnel under highway 14 when the trail was originally constructed? Why didn't they wait to see if it would in fact be a dangerous intersection? Afterall, some people would lead you to believe that we should only put safety measures in after an accident has happened.

janesvillian: While you may think a tunnel is the safest alternative here, why wouldn't a tunnel be the safest alternative anywhere? A big issue with this type of expenditure is that there is no evidence that a tunnel is warranted here more than anywhere else in the city that people feel uncomfortable crossing a street. Wouldn't a tunnel be the safest alternative on Ruger Avenue? Wouldn't it be safest on Beloit Avenue? I only ask that you provide evidence why this place is anymore deserving than any other intersection.
+
Following your logic, an underground network of tunnels would be the safest alternative.
+
The best investment is one that addresses the real issue and would benefit the entire city: that is sending a very loud and clear message to inattentive drivers.

Good idea, janesvillean !! If we "need" to do anything at all, why not save half a mil. And let everyone know it. Donations could pay for the sign. Tell me where to send my $20.

Obviously a tunnel is the safest alternative, and as an investment that will be in place for fifty years or more, it is certainly worth the cost. Geography favors a tunnel in this location. Traffic engineers worldwide know that grade separation is the safest way to have two modes of transportation cross.
.
That said, if we really really really must, we could consider an at-grade alternative. The city engineers have suggested narrowing the street, as a traffic-calming effect. I've said here that a gentle curve and an island would probably have the same effect, but that isn't on the table.
.
My proposal, then, is to implement the at-grade proposal with one modification. A billboard for both directions would say "you are slowing down here to save taxpayers $500,000". Just so anybody blowing a gasket knows what the taxpayers made them do.

pwtrip- wow we do agree here. I also mentioned to look before crosssing street and have been DIAGNOSED with anger management instead of hey that is a good idea!! you must be silly too like me to wait for coast to be clear to cross. maybe you said it in a way people will understand!?

so youre going to trust "the law" and hope they just stop for you???? tha tisnt working remember!! that is why they want a tunnel. I had a lady dart out in front of me once in a crosswalk. I think she has the law goofed up I was alreay in the cross walk driving before she even was at curb crossing she darted out in front of me and I had to slam on my brakes so i wouldnt hit her. they do have right of way if tHEYRE already in the cross walk. THEY dont have the right of way to make traffic slam on braeks if theyre not even in the cross walk YET. hope that made sence.

And yes i will get angry when I have to spend more money in tax dollars than I do already because somebody doesnt have the sence or patience to cross a road when there ISNT traffic coming. and again there havent been any acccidents there. there are cheaper and efficient way to do this if they feel THEY MUST spend money in hard times as this.

here is another idea- if so scary turn around and go back the way you came.

Local: if you'd read the article, you'd see that "The council will examine the project at least once more, when it considers approving the bid to build the tunnel."
+
I suggest you run on down and cross at the Wright Road intersection. Then you will avoid that %25 of the time when you are flipped off by the third and fourth car. While you're on your jaunt tonight, take a pencil and paper. Write down the license plates of those who are flipping you off and not following the rules of the road. It's the least you can do.
+
I'm not interested in joining you on the trail, as I use it quite frequently and am aware of the proper way to cross a street. If I'm concerned for my safety at that particular crosswalk, I'll walk down to the stoplights that our tax dollars have already funded. You should do the same.

Hannah-
You obviously do not know the law. Cars are required to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, not just at this crossing, but at any crossing. As for your anger issues, please take them somewhere else.

waiting untill there arent any cars in the road beofre crossing "PRICELESS"

and if you think you can stand out int he road when cars are there hpoing theyll stop for you IF THEY ARE PAYING attention then maybe you should wait OH I THINK I SAID THIS wait TILL NO CARS IN THE ROAD!!!

yes there is a perfect solution. DONT CROSS WHEN THERE ARE CARS PRESENT. wow did i say that already!!??? as they mentioned there isnt enough traffic to warrent 4 lanes of traffic so i am sure there are times that there are nNOT cars in the road.

so cross when NO CARS ARE THERE TO FLIP YOU OFF!!!! a syou would with any other road!!!

lakekennedy: There is not a perfect solution. I stop for traffic and press the light over 70% of the time that I cross. 3/4 of the time it's fine. The other 1/4 is a crap shoot. I can stare down 2 cars, signal with a wave and the 3rd and 4th car give me a wave back with a middle finger in the air as they race by.

I reiterate the fact that this issue has been debated for over a year and the council approved the matter. Only after it was approved did the opponents come out of the woodwork.

My offer still stands. I'll be running on the trail tonight. Those who care to run along are welcome. I'll cross Milwaukee St. twice.

It was a waste of money the first time I heard about it and is a waste today. I crossed at that intersection yesterday (on my bicycle) and had (as usual) no problems at all. I waited about 15 seconds for traffic to clear and went slowly and easily.

----

The "safety" concern here is really a way of rewarding impatience. Joggers and bikers (I'm both) who cannot pause their workout for a few seconds to cross safely. Drivers who ignore flashing yellow lights because they don't want to have to slow down for a few seconds to allow people to cross.

----

Solution: Police enforcement. Ticket every biker who fails to stop. Ticket pedestrians who dart out into traffic. Ticket every car that runs the flashing yellow - failing to yield to a pedestrian. Do this for a few weeks and watch the problem go away - plus make money for the city. At least try it before spending hundreds of thousands on this so-called "solution".

localmatters: I use this trail frequently. With my five year old son. We cross at the E. Milwaukee Street crossing and again at Ruger St. We get off of our bikes and walk them across the street. I put my hand up and make eye contact with the drivers so that I know they've seen and acknowledged me.
+
For all of you that are this concerned about your safety, I suggest you ride on down to the stoplights at the Wright Road and E. Milwaukee Street intersection, and ride back to the trail after you've crossed safetly. If you have problems with those lights, you are far too fragile to be on a bike in the first place. I sincerely think that this isn't a safety issue for the majority of you, but one of convenience. I think you hate having to stop and look both ways, thus interrupting your exercise routine. If you want to see change, grab a pen and write down the license plate numbers of the cars you see flying through. Call the police. Tell them what you've witnessed. The fact that none of you care that a lot of people can't afford and don't want to pay for this tunnel is insulting.

$670,000 spent on a bike tunnel in a town that is about to loose the biggest manufacturing entity in the towns history. That's 3000 people (including secondary suppliers) that will be UNEMPLOYED! That means a lot less of us will be living in this town in about 3 years...I am NOT talking about putting money before safety here, there hasn't been an accident at the cross walk yet, but $670,000!!!! Again, HIRE two police officers to do extra ENFORCEMENT of the laws that we have!

They could have the button for the light down farther on the trail so they could press it before they got to the intersection and drivers would be aware that there are people on the trail that need to cross the intersection.

How about throwing some money to the west side and extend the trail to around parker high shool area or the jsol. This would be great to connect west side neighborhoods to the pools, beach, and parks.

Sounds to me they need the hits. That is why they reiterate the GM articles once and awhile

This bike tunnel is almost as ridiculous as the Children's Museum. I'm not sure which I find more offensive.
+
Economically speaking, this tunnel is definitley not a priority. Why the council can't recognize this is beyond me. I'd also like to assert that there has been no accident here on E. Milwaukee Street that would provide proof that a bike tunnel is needed here more than anywhere else. I find, consistently, that crossing on Ruger Street is far more difficult.
+
I want to point out that there have been accidents at the Whuthering Hills/E. Milwaukee Street intersection. One resulted in a tragic fatality. Regardless of the outcome of this ludicrous tunnel, the city will be putting stop lights in at that intersection soon. I argue that if they would install those lights now, the speed of traffic would decrease substantially since drivers have a short distance to the next set of stop lights on Wright Road and E. Milwaukee.
+
The real issue creating this alleged "dead zone" is the lack of responsibility taken by drivers. This issue spreads across the entire city and needs to be addressed by law enforcement. What makes the East side so much more worthy of a tunnel than the crossing down on Beloit Avenue? I urge the police department to send a message to inattentive drivers and speeders across the city. The idea of putting in a tunnel sends a very loud message to these drivers, it says: It's okay if you continuously break the law and put the lives of our citizens at risk, we'll just go under you".
+
I urge you all to contact the city council at:
citycouncil@ci.janesville.wi.us
Let them know that you are not interested in seeing your tax dollars raised to fund this tunnel.
Call the police department when you see someone driving irresponsibly:
608-755-3100
Let them know that these drivers pose a real risk to ALL citizens of Janesville, not just the citizens on the east side.

spikesmom-what a silly comment- red light do no good in this city. wow i think they do well since there isnt 100's of accidents daily listed in the public record. do as i do look too before crossing EVEN if the light turns incase somebody is wizzing threw a yellow that is going to red.

Unidentified-so you're suggesting that I drive my car with my bike on a rack to a point on the trail where I could avoid crossing Milwaukee? Now that's a good idea.

Any why did the Gazette do this article? The info presented isn't new. It's clearly stated in the article that this is a hot button issue on this site. They must have needed a bump in website traffic.

I understand the concept of a bike tunnel and why it would be beneficial. However, from the priority standpoint this ranks quite low. People have the choice of using that particular part of our enormous bike trail system. As a result, if they choose to use that portion then they can also cross with extreme caution. At a time when Janesville is facing so many budgetary uncertainties I feel a proposal like this should be shelved until a later date. I don’t consider this to be putting fiscal responsibility ahead of safety, because there are other areas of the bike trail that can be used if people don’t feel safe crossing that point. In addition, it is not as if people are using their bikes to commute to work on that portion of the trail. On the other hand, I support the roundabout at E. Milwaukee and Wuthering Hills drive, because people have to use that intersection for their daily drives and there are, in some cases, no alternatives. This is a matter of deciding what is needed and what would be nice to have. It’s time Janesville starts getting a strangle hold on spending and give tax payers some relief.

I agree with spikesmom that we should be enforcing the laws in this city (speed and stoplights)! When I first moved here, I met a police officer and was talking with him and he told me "You can go 10 mph over the limit in town and you'll never get stopped." I'm sure he thought he was being helpful, but I'm still blown away by how casually he shared that info! No wonder people can't cross the streets safely!

right on Long_time_gone !

this article is a blatant propaganda piece for the pro tunnelers

The Ice Age trail passes over many streets in town. As the Ice Age trail is developed and gains more usage, are we going to pay for a tunnel at every crossing at the cost of multi-millions ?

Stoplights are useless in this city. Janesville needs to install cameras at stoplights, send out tickets to everyone that runs them and use that revenue to pay for the tunnel. There will be so much money coming in from the tickets we'll be able to fund EVERYTHING in town for years!!

For $670,000.00 you could have a police officer personally escort people across that street for ten years for that kind of money...plus it would employee two more people full time!

what about enforcing the current speed limit with better enforcement....I believe that all of the accidents that happened in this area of this road had "speed" as a factor in the accident.
And who is looking at the cost comparison...tunnel = $435,000 city cost and widening the street for an island = #142,800 city cost but a con is "State funding would most likely not be available"? Why would we be concerned with this state funding if we are ok with already accepting bids that is going to be 3 times as much for the city's cost. I really need to re-evaulate who I vote into the City Council next time.

Put a cop on that cross walk for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10 years, and you can better believe that people will comply with the law, or else that intersection will be a great revenue generator for the city and be able to pay for other cops elsewhere.

Just go lay in the street

Pwtrip: Who rides the trail? I do and many of my co-workers do as well. Where does it go that's so important? For me: work. It is not just for leisure. It is a viable commuting alternative to cars, trucks and SUV's. In addition, there were comments by our city council president a few weeks back that she has not heard from one person in favor of the tunnel. I did send my comments supporting the tunnel; however, the city e-mail did not properly deliver it to her...only the other members that I sent the message to. Bottom line: the city has made it's recommendation to the council and the council voted in favor of proceeding with the tunnel. All city members will never agree on everything. In this case, officials that we elected made the decision after over a year of discussion. A good decision in my opinion.

You are all right! Lets not improve things, lets leave everything the way it is, it is already perfect right?

Has anyone considered the value of the trail, or the money that has already been allocated towards it? 18+ miles of trial, maintenance etc has had a very hefty price tag. Not building the tunnel would be like buying a new Cadilac and forgetting the fact that it is missing a rear bumper.

Build the tunnel! Our trail is a great asset for the city!

How much do speed bumps cost?

Did anyone catch this gem....

STOPLIGHT ALTERNATIVE - Cons: "Greatest risk to drivers and pedestrians," according to the report. Opponents claim a stoplight would be ineffective because cars sometimes fail to stop at red lights. Engineering recommendation: No
*
Because cars sometime fail to stop at red lights....What kind of reasoning is this?
*
Civil Engineers = failed architects.

Ooops! I guess I need to read the article better! It is the last option listed and sounds like a good one, much cheaper than all the other ones.

I could see making the whole stretch into one lane with a median down the middle. I think that would solve the bike trail problem and the Wuthering Hills problem. What's the price tag on that? Probably less than the tunnel and roundabout together.

coffeeman & janesvillemom: Great posts!

+

The story janesvillemom posted is a great example of why we need a tunnel. Her husband saw 6 cars stopped but the westbound drivers didn't seem to care. So car number 6 begins to not care and takes off also. How should any person be expected to watch cars 6 deep in both directions and get across safely. He believed he was safe and obviously didn't see car number six who became impatient.

A TUNNEL IS NEEDED LIKE IT OR NOT!

+

We will NEVER have a society where all drivers obey the law all the time. Holding drivers accoutable is reactive not proactive. Everyone would love a perfect world but that isn't reality.

spikesmom said: "There is way too much traffic on that street to narrow it to one lane each direction."

Actually, that is not true. Milwaukee Street doesn't have enough traffic to justify four lanes from Wright Road to Hwy 14. The city planning dept. published that information when a study was done after the traffic death at the Wuthering Hills intersection. Four lanes actually gives drivers a false sense of safety, so more drivers speed. I agree with the rest of your comment, except for the NEED part.

CIM has it right. Reduce the entire length of Milwaukee Street east of Wright Road down to two lanes. Why isn't that an option the city is considering?

Pwrtrip: It is further the accountability of the ignorant driver. We would NOT have to address this issue if everyone would learn to drive correctly. It is not the bicyclist, it is the driver. I agree with localmatters. I ride that trail many times and am a very good bicyclist, but this community is not cycle friendly. The driver of an automobile is required by law to allow 3 feet of clearance when they approach a bicyclist. I wish I had a nickle for everytime I was given the finger and almost hit because the drivers do not know the law!! It might be leisure, but so are a lot of things the city pays for and maintains. Lets get rid of our parks, pools, etc. Too much money and just a leisure anyway.

The other night my husband was waiting to cross with the lights flashing. The eastbound cars (nearest to him)stopped, but not the westbound cars. He waited until the westbound cars passed and there were no westbound cars coming. In the meantime, about 6 cars were lined up in the eastbound lane and one of them decided to quit waiting and go. Since they had been stopped, my husband stepped into the street as the last westbound car passed only to be nearly hit by the eastbound car that had previously been stopped. Luckily, he looked and jumped back so he didn't get hit. I have seen many "near misses" at this crossing and eventually there will be a case where they don't "miss".
This week I was waiting to cross a street with a light and after the light turned red, 2 cars went right through the red light with my child and I standing right there. So unless people start driving with respect for pedestrians, we will need tunnels at every crossing! SLOW DOWN and be COURTEOUS when you are driving and we wouldn't need the tunnel, but right now, we do need it.

To answer the headline: Yes. To those who continue to doubt it I'll plan a time I'd like you to show up and see how ignorant and un-pedestrian friendly our community is. I use this trail crossing twice a day and I use the intersection of Wright and Milwaukee twice a day. Frankly, from a pedestrian or bicyclist standpoint they are both as dangerous.

Who'd care to join me?

There must be some very important / influential bike riders in that area.
.
Leave the street as it is increase police patrols and fines for speeding.

i agree do nothing - AND DONT CROSS THE STREET IF YOU SEE CARS COMING DDDUUUUUUUHHHHHHHH.

or id that isnt good enough stop and go light.

There is a one way street i turn on all the time I STILL look both ways before turning onto it in CASE somebody is going the wrong way. because ONCE they did.I dont call the city and say THIS could be dangerous and say we need a ramp or something so nobody can go down the wrong way. LOOK while walking or driving for cars!!!!! so simple they teach it to you in kindergarden.

I would like to know how much it cost to build all the other bike tunnels we have. Those went in without anybody complaining. It would have been a non-issue if a tunnel had been built at this spot at the same time all the other ones went in. There is way too much traffic on that street to narrow it to one lane each direction. Isn't that why it was widened to begin with? There will always be drivers that won't stop and there will always be bicyclists and pedestrians that are too self-absorbed to consider waiting a minute or two to give cars a chance to notice them and stop. I drive it every day. I see the people, that as soon as they approach the crosswalk, just take off across the road, don't activate the lights and just expect 10 cars in both directions to notice them all at once. The lights are there for a reason. Drivers see flashing yellow lights long before they see a pedestrian. If you use the bike trail and don't give drivers a fair chance to see you and react you should not be on this board complaining about spending money on something not needed. You are why it is needed.

hey Pwrtrip this is Skinner, 670,000 for a bike trail tunnel? With all the flooding this is the best use of the city's funds?? Thats insane. How about we simply mow down the entire greenbelt and pave it over and build a bicycle superhighway there? We could even have toll booths like in Illinois. This bike trail thing is terrible for the damage that has already been done to the greenbelt and a insane WASTE of city funds.

$670,000.00!!! How about HIRING TWO police officers to do nothing but enforce the LAW right there at that crossing for TEN YEARS! And when weather is bad and pedestrian traffic is down, have them ENFORCE traffic laws around town! Like the Milton Ave. drag strip, or that horrible intersection on Milwaukee and Wuthering Hills!

I have ridden the trails with my grand kids. We still have to cross busy thoroughfares throughout the trails; Wright Rd, Hwy 11 (Racine St) at Palmer Pk., & Beloit Ave....just to name a few. We take our safety in our own hands at these junctions, so what makes Milwaukee St any different?

I prefer the narrowing of Milwaukee street from HWY 14 to Fagan Chevrolet near Wright Road to a three lane road. One lane in each direction with a middle turn lane with some median islands. This would probably also along bike lanes on both sides of the street. This option along with the roundabout at Wuthering Hills would probably be the safest and most cost efficient for the area.