Hixson lobbies for Milton I-90 access
Photo
Rep. Kim Hixson
MILTON — Traffic on Milton’s east side might be headed out the back door with the Highway 26 bypass in 2014, but one state official is hatching a plan aimed at bringing motorists and commerce off Interstate 90/39 and into Milton via County M.
The idea is still in its infancy, but Rep. Hixson, D-Whitewater, said last week he’s interested the idea of putting an interchange at the intersection of I-90/39 and County M, which is the western extension of West Madison Avenue in Milton.
With the Highway 26 bypass in 2014 set to divert traffic away from the city’s east side, Hixson said he’d been contacted by “a few people in Milton” concerned about the future of the city’s businesses.
Hixson would not specify who contacted him, but he said their message was clear: “They said, ‘We need an Interstate exit.’ And my feeling is they’re probably right.”
Hixson said an interchange would give commuters and travelers a more direct connection between Milton, Janesville and Madison. Milton sits two miles east of an eight-mile stretch of I-90/39 between Janesville and Newville that has no exits.
“There definitely needs to be an exit somewhere in the middle,” Hixson said. “It would be an economic development tool for Milton and would provide the city much easier access, instead of people having to drive north to Newville or south to Janesville,” Hixson said.
A plan for a Milton interchange would be tied to a larger, $1 billion proposal to expand to six lanes I-90/39 between Madison and the Illinois/Wisconsin state line. Work on that project could start in 2015, officials have said.
“It would most definitely work best in tandem with (the proposed expansion) because all of the construction could be done at that time. A few of the overpasses along that route would have to be worked on,” Hixson said.
In recent weeks, local and state officials have trumpeted developments in the proposed Interstate expansion, but the plan has not been approved. The state Transportation Projects Commission, the committee that would decide the plan’s fate, has not met in a number of years, officials have said.
Hixson said his staff had planned to meet this week with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, but he said there have been no formal talks about the possible Milton interchange. There are no estimates on what the interchange could cost, he said.
Still, Hixson recently sent letters to local stakeholders and Milton city officials about the interchange concept. He said he hopes for input.
“The sooner that we really know how the community feels, then we can have more serious conversations about moving this along,” he said.
City Administrator Todd Schmidt did not return calls to the Gazette seeking comment on Hixson’s proposal, but he submitted a prepared statement which said the city is “interested in the concept,” and that “the city of Milton comprehensive plan does support growth west that would work well with an interchange at County M and I-39/90.”
Milton Mayor Tom Chesmore told the Gazette city officials had not initiated talk about a Milton interchange, and he said he’s unaware of any private interest in a Milton interchange.
He said he was “surprised” to learn about the interchange idea, but he has told Hixson’s staff he’d support it because it could spur business and industrial development and funnel commerce into the city.
Rock County Director of Public Works Ben Coopman and Rock County Engineer Rich Cannon said the county has not been in touch with Hixson about the Milton interchange idea, but they said the idea would require an Interstate justification report—a study they said could be paid for by either a municipality or a private entity.
The study would be reviewed by the state Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration and would be subject to approval based on impact the interchange would have on flow of traffic, land use and the environment.
Chesmore said he’s interested in learning more about the interchange concept, but for now, he’s keeping his enthusiasm bridled.
“Would I like to see it? Yeah.
“Am I going to get real excited about it? Not yet.”
May 15, 2011 at 6:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why is this story still or should I say back on here! Take it off as it's almost a year old!!
Jun 22, 2010 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
They could still use it if they wanted to, facts01. Fact.
Jun 22, 2010 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who are these mysterious backers of this plan in Milton? I bet it's 2 guys whose businesses would benefit. Hixson is running for reelection, btw.
Jun 22, 2010 at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Access to the area? Its a gravel road for crying out loud. Milton Fire has asked for ramp access to I-90 for about 30 years. It would save time when going to anything on I-90. All of you people who think its so easy. Go take a $400,000 dollar engine on a gravel road. With the recent rains we have had and the weight of these engines they will sink. Ok now we have a $400,000 dollar fire engine stuck in the mud and someone dying on the interstate. That will make headlines and all you people who think its a bad idea to put a paved surface in will be looking for someones head. Hope its you that needs some help on the interstate sometime so you can wonder why its taking so long. OH and lets not forget the traffic that backs up when there is anything up there. So yea why don't you just walk (if your able) to the nearest hospital. Some people just don't get it and there are a lot in these blogs. Waste of money says one....yea whats a human life worth these days?
Jun 22, 2010 at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Apparently access with EMS vehicles isn't important enough for them to use the emergency exits.
Jun 22, 2010 at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Apparently access with EMS vehicles isn't important enough for them to use the emergency exits.
Jun 22, 2010 at 7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
So... If there is already access to that area, why do we need a ramp on M...?
Jun 22, 2010 at 6:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think Nascar17 is trying to say it takes fire/EMS vehicles from Milton Fire Department more travel time to the ramps in Janesvile or Newville than it would for a ramp on CTH M.
As far as I know, those "Emergency Access" gravel roads are not used for emergency vehicle traffic. I beleive they are for county vehicles (i.e. plows & mowers)and to exit stranded vehicles stuck in blizzards.
Jun 22, 2010 at 5:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
A big waste of money.
Jun 21, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree Nascar17.
Jun 21, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
I see a huge time savings for all EMERGENCY responders for incidents on the interstate. As of right now they have to go 4 miles out of their way to Janesville to get on or 4 miles out of their way to Newville....I think this is a long time past due.....
Jun 21, 2010 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Special interest funding...
Jun 21, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
The land owner is Mulder Farms, you remember the fair grounds deal they were part of? Bad for everyone but them. Mulder owns most of the land around the area and would benefit greatly. I do not see any real time saving, as Janeville or Newville are very convienent. We do not need to waste more money, maybe Hixon needs a donation is why he suggested it.
Jun 21, 2010 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Maybe the land owner out there is the person really pushing for this. Just think what the property would be worth if it went in. I don't think it's such a long drive to the Newville or Janesville exits and I doubt the state will want another exit on the interstate.
Jun 21, 2010 at 6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
An exit at County M looks better on paper than in reality.
The time savings to reach Milton is small, if nonexistent. Remember, there's already exit 163 for 59 providing a similar function. The distance from exit 163 to Milton is similar using 59 to that using I-39/I-90, then exiting at County M.
The railroad just south of County M will either dictate bridges for the on/off ramps over the railroad, or an 8-lane bridge over County M to accommodate ramp traffic.
Emergency access to I-39/I-90 is already present and accounted for with a emergency access ramp at Townline Rd. One could easily be created at County M if public safety needs dictate.
The only justification I can see for a new ramp at County M is traffic relief at Exit 163. It is a fairly busy ramp, for sure, with it also handling Whitewater traffic. Is that sufficient to justify a exit at County M?
Jun 21, 2010 at 12:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
It would probably be funded mostly, if not entirely with fed funds on the "use-it-or-lose-it" basis. If the state does not use funds granted by feds for highway maintenance and improvements, then they lose a significant portion in the following year's budget. Then when the state needs funding to make repairs its not there because they didn't spend enough in previous year(s). Seems wasteful but without going along with it drivers will start complaining (more) about road conditions. That said, it seems a lot has already been spent in the I-system between Janesville and Madison this year. Seems like every other week is another lane closure.
Jun 20, 2010 at 11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh, Mudsill, aren't you a pleasant person.
Jun 20, 2010 at 11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
My first thought was that was a good idea too. But looking at it some more, I came to the conclusion that there isn't much of an industrial park on the west end of Milton, but there would be SOME economic development, like a truck stop or small mall outlet type of thing, so eventually there could be an industrial park on that end of town. I think quite a bit of that ramp traffic would likely end up in the southern end of Edgerton. But I can't see a need for it. Hwy 26 and John Paul Road do a nice job right now.
Jun 20, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
The final selection of an interchange location would be by the state DOT following a long process involving studies (traffic, economic, environmental, engineering, etc.) and hearings. The public will have ample opportunity for input.
.
I'm personally unsure that M is the best place for an interchange, although I've mentioned here and elsewhere that I'd like to see a northern entrance opened up for Janesville (now that 26 is well within the urbanized area). I'm not particularly fond of more highway spending, given that I think the investment would be better placed in rail and sustainable development, but an interchange is a logical add-on to a major widening project. The state would be wise to evaluate Manogue Rd. and Townline Rd. alternatives, including the connection possibilities to the new 26.
Jun 20, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I don't see why this guy didn't call a meeting for suggestions. A few people call him up and he proposes a plan. And how much exactly would that interchange cost? There's always money when it comes to highways, never money when it comes to education or public transportation.
Jun 20, 2010 at 4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Be sure to have all the proponents meet face-to-face with the property owners who would lose the land necessary to put a new interchange in - unless there is adequate county/state/federal land adjacent to the highway where they could put an interchange on without using the threat of eminent domain to force people to give up their property.
We've already lost good farm land in Rock County to the unnecessary weighing station at the state line. I don't want to see another farmer or farmers shafted because Milton residents are tired of driving to the Highway 26 interchange.
Jun 20, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Great idea! It would also help in cases of accidents, Fires and weather related issues on the interstate. As of now, The only emergency accesses are in Janesville or Edgerton.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.