City council still divided over Milwaukee Street bike tunnel

If we shut down the bike trail not only do we save the money for the tunnel project but it would save us from having to pay for upkeep/maint. on the trail. This in turn lessens the chance that anyone gets hurt from cars or from them falling off the bike.

tha tis when there will prob be a for sure accident because nobody will be looking AT ALL for people crossing "because there is a tunnnel"

roadking- very good point- if they make the tunnell will it be THE ONLY way to get across then- doubt it. I can see others still going over the old fashion way cause maybe using the tunnel would take too long or inconvience them .

All street corners should have tunnels instead of crosswalks. Actually we have many of them in place already. Just pull up the storm grates and let the bicyclists and pedestrians use those tunnels. Put a catapult on the walkways where we don't have storm sewers and fling them over the traffic. I watch bicyclists and pedestrians ride and walk right through stop signs all the time. If they aren't smart enough to realize that those stop signs are meant for them what makes people think they'll understand what the tunnel is for?

my other thought is if nobody is stopping at the flashing yellow it is prob because:

yellow means slow or yield. why would anybody STOp if nobody is IN the road??? If people are waiting at the curb it is because theyre waiting for no traffic to cross. yellow doesnt mean STOp RED DOES so make the flashing yellow a RED STOP!!!! so what if the traffic has to wait a bit longer even if the people have already crossed the road. Are they angary at ALL the other stop lights in town because they have to STOP for and wait for the light the light to change!!

That is how the intersections at schools work. hit the button to cross and it turns RED for STOP!!!!

I hope no one gets captured by Sleestacks after the tunnel is built.

I hope the ones we voted to make decisions for us, take time to read all of this

The explicit claim that the tunnel is needed to save lives comes with the implicit claim that the tunnel will cause no lives to be lost.

Whoever is making this implicit claim should go one step further with the EXplicit claim (and therefore garauntee) that the tunnel will cause no lives to be lost.

I hear ya, bucksandy, but I still maintain that I am NOT going to the extreme by proposing there is an equal threat of danger at every other intersection as at this one in question. The fact that there has been NO harm inflicted on anyone while crossing here supports that logic.
*
I appreciate and respect your arguments, I just disagree with them on a number of levels. This type of debate is good though, and it is what I believe this blog page is meant for. I think that I've monopolized this page long enough, and to be honest, this particular debate has turned into an unhealthy obsession for me. I'll keep checking in on comments, but before I sign off, I just want to urge EVERYONE--whether you agree with me or not--to talk to your council representatives about your feelings on the tunnel. If building this tunnel is reflective of the majority of Janesvillians wishes, then I feel it should be built. It's construction just isn't consistent of what I believe to be a "city priority". The council's contact information is posted numerous times earlier in this blog.

We'll see what happens.

lakennedy - I didn't waste my time. I used the link you posted to voice my support for the tunnel. Thank you.

Make it a "toll" tunnel.
.
Since "safety has no price," most of you who use it should be willing to pay.
.
Those who don't want to pay can cross at the corner.

lakennedy - I would not consider my argument to be a straw-man. In a straw-man argument person A makes an argument, then in order to shoot down this argument, person B changes it to an extreme and claims that the new extreme is the original argument, thus making the argument made by person A ridiculous and easily refuted. For example:

Person A: The place where the bike trail crosses Milwaukee St is dangerous. Something should be done before someone gets hurt, and I think a tunnel is a good idea.

Person B: Well that's crazy! You can't just put a tunnel under every street where someone might get hurt!

In this scenario, person A is proposing a tunnel under what he/she believes to be a dangerous trail crossing. Person B changes person A's argument to something ridiculous, saying that person A wants a tunnel under every street. Person B has created a ridiculous straw-man argument and attibuted the argument to person A in order to make person A seem silly. (This is merely an example, not quotes)

In saying that someone could get hurt because it this crossing is very dangerous, and something should be done, I am stating my own words. Nowhere in my argument do I attribute a statement to anybody else, let alone a statement that was never made. That is what makes a straw-man. If you disagree about the safety issue, it still is not a straw-man argument.

True I have no statistics to prove the dangers of this crossing, but the danger is anything but assumed. I don't really know what statistics you are looking for, though. If it is number of fatalities, I think we can all agree that any number would be too high. Even any serious injury would be too much. Again, if you go to this crossing you will more than likely experience the danger first hand. Trail users and motorists both ignore the law here (although I would argue motorists are the more common offenders), and it definitely makes for a dangerous situation. If everyone followed the rules and exercised common courtesy, there would be no issue, but the fact is people do not.

I do understand that the funding is an issue. Our community and our country have fallen on hard economic times, and I do not wish to trivialize this matter. However, I do not see the funding as a major issue, especially when looking at the rather small amount each taxpayer will have to pay as opposed to the total cost.

Lastly, while there is a stop light a ways down the road at Wright Rd., I would hardly consider that intersection a "safe haven," but that's an entirely different issue.

moco, if you have so much extra money laying around, hire your own crossing guard. My comment was to a general comment made, in which ages of kids were not listed. I myself always tried to keep my small children away from busy streets because I know how slow and unpredictable they were, or I carried them across. Here is what is short sided, and a fact, speeding idiots are the problem, build this stinkin tunnel, and prove to them that they can do what ever the hell they want, and the city of Janesville will accomodate them. We won't stop your speeding, we will spend money we don't have so you can keep doing it. The REAL problem is not what needs to be done, it's why it needs to be done. Solve the why, and you won't have to worry about the what.

Is that really all you got, justsome1here? You throw out ridiculous assumptions about how I feel about insurance?

Don't waste our time.

I understand your comments, but by the wikipedia definition you provided, doesn't your very argument qualify as a straw man argument? "as a weak or imaginary argument.."
Well, isn't the argument that it is a possiblity that someone could get run over a straw man argument?
You say it is a safety hazard, but with no statistics to back this up, it is assumed to be a safety hazard, therefore your entire argument is straw man.

The funding may not seem to be an issue to you, but speaking for myself, it is an issue. Even if we weren't faced with difficult economic times, this expenditure--for a purely recreational use--would be a low priority during the most prosperous of times. Especially since there is a stop light down the street (corner of wright rd and east milwaukee) that provides a safe haven for those who are concerned about crossing the street there.

hannah - There is also proof that people get hit by cars, maybe not at this crossing yet, but why take the chance.

I'll agree to the tunnel thing when all the State Farm offices in town are located in tunnels.

hannah - I agree with what you said. In addition to proof of the things you mentioned, there is also proof of accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians. Perhaps not at this particular trail crossing, but I'm sure you've heard of it. I doubt most people who buy insurance buy it after something has happened to them personally, but that it has happened somewhere, just as we should build a tunnel here even if no one has been hurt yet. Now, before someone says, "well by that logic, put a tunnel everywhere!", keep in mind that a tunnel, like insurance, should only be purchased if a legititmate threat exists. Just as perhaps a huge life insurance policy is not a good expenditure for a young, healthy, single person with no family to provide for, we do not need a tunnel at every crossing. However, I feel the risk at Milwaukee St. warrants a tunnel, just as many people's life situation warrants a life insurance policy.

justsome1here- but there is proof of auto accidents, fire, theft that is why we have it.Maybe not personally but people you may know of. As we have mentioned nobody has been hurt yet.

I loved the Sleestacks- land of theeeee LLOOSSSTTT

We need an actuary. And personally, I need a drink.

lakennedy - Here is part 1 of 2 of my reply:
*
Maybe I wasn't clear on what my argument is and what I mean by the straw-men others are using. My argument is that the trail crossing at Milwaukee St. is very dangerous and the tunnel is the safest option to remedy the situation, since the traffic signals already in place are routinely ignored.
*
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines straw-man as "a weak or imaginary opposition…set up only to be easily confuted." Wikipedia also gives a good explanation; a straw-man "describe[s] a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, and is then attribute[d] to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position)." (link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) For an example of a straw-man argument used, I direct you to the post you made Jul 10, 2008 at 9:52 a.m., which states "you're argument dictates that we should be putting in tunnels all over the city. Someone COULD be hit at sometime, so according to you, we should be proactive and put in tunnels right now before something happens." No one said anything resembling the argument that tunnels should be put up all over the city; you merely invented this ridiculous argument to easily shoot it down.
*
For evidence of a real safety issue at this crossing, I admit I have no statistics. However, if you haven’t already, I invite you to show yourself the safety issue by attempting to cross here on the trail. Press the button and see how long it takes for enough vehicles to stop for you to make it safely across, keeping in mind that it is the law to yield to pedestrians in the cross walk and that vehicles are going much faster than the posted speed limit. In my opinion, this is the most difficult place on the trail to cross safely, and as such, deserves a tunnel whereas other crossings do not.

lakennedy - Here is part 2 of 2 of my reply:

You suggest I write a letter to the editor explaining the tax increase. I think you would have a problem with this, as I would explain it as thetruth explained here on Jul 10, 2008 at 9:41 a.m., breaking it down into per tax payer numbers (thetruth estimated about $29, which makes sense to me). I think we all have trouble imagining the $435,000 amount suggested (I certainly do), and I feel the more important number is how much it will cost each taxpayer (again, around $29) since it seems that concerns people the most. You asked me to explain my adamant "support to keep people safe in an area where no one has been injured, but 'just in case someone gets hurt'." "Just in case someone gets hurt" in quotes says that someone said this. Since you were talking to me, I assume you are attempting to quote me. Nowhere did I say the reason for my support of this tunnel was "just in case someone gets hurt" (another straw-man?) On the contrary, if someone does get hurt, it would be too late.
*
You said these things weren't too much to ask of me considering what I had asked of you. I don't think I was asking much. The request I made was for people, on both sides, to have valid reasons for disagreeing, and a feasible solution to the safety issue (not one that the council already looked at and decided against).
*
Sorry for being so wordy again, but I wanted to completely respond. I'd like to repeat what I said earlier: The perfect solution is for motorists and trail users to exercise total safety and responsibility. Since this is not feasible, I think the tunnel is the way to go.

If you believe that spending money to construct a tunnel is a waste JUST IN CASE someone might get hurt without it, then I am sure you also believe spending money on homeowners insurance JUST IN CASE your home burns down is also a waste. Or for that matter, spending money on auto insurance JUST IN CASE you get in an accident is a waste. Or one could argue that spending money on health insurance JUST IN CASE you are critically ill is also waste. Just because someone hasn't been injured yet at this crossing does not make it less of a safety hazard.

Sleestacks!!!

I agree, Gazettefan, and have used that argument a lot. You see, no one has been injured at this proposed location. The tunnel is a "proactive" measure to ensure that no one does get hurt.
So, following this logic, the city should be funding an entire network of tunnels--because the possibility that there may be an accident exists everywhere.

With all the danger up here, maybe we should just all live below ground!!! That's the logical of extention of putting a tunnel under Milwaukee Street.

IsaidGoodDay:
You're welcome for the contact information, but just between you and I, I'd rather you didn't contact them!!! lol

The bottom line is that pedestrians have the right of way. Yellow lights mean slow down, not SPEED UP. The problem is drivers nowadays. Everyone is impatient and in a hurry to get everywhere. You could have the police enforcing the law, but it's not going to stop anyone from breaking the law when there aren't any police around. I'm for putting the tunnel in. Why wait until somewhat is badly hurt or killed? The money spent is well worth it.

lakennedy: Thank you so much for the information on how to contact the city council. I will definitely contact them and let them know that I support putting the tunnel in.

Roadking, you're free to have whatever opinions you want regarding Councilman McDonald, but I urge you to remember that he is only one of FOUR members who voted for this.
He is also the only one of the four members who has been both monitoring this blog and responding to e-mails questioning the funding, etc. While you may not agree with this vote or his voting record, I hope you understand that he doesn't just sit around and dream up ways to waste money.
Personally, although I obviously disagree with this vote, I think he's an asset to our city council.
I also like your idea of a crossing guard. I wonder if there would be volunteers to take shifts. Maybe not around the clock, but definitley during the busy times.

Give McDonald a crossing guard uniform and make him stand in the street to stop traffic. This would address the safety issue, wouldn't cost anything (other than the cost of the uniform) and give him something else to occupy his time instead of dreaming up ridiculous ways to spend taxpayer money.

Yes, keep the trail above ground. Another benefit of this will be that motorists will not be separated from the activity of the trail users.

While waiting, motorists will be made to contemplate the trail users and the trail and might therefore become trail users themselves.

670K for a freakin tunnel?? Are you kidding me? Is this thing going to be air conditioned or something? Think of all the oher problems that are going to come with this. Tunnels by their nature are below grade. Water will accumulate there, and i don't care how good of a drainage system they will install, and become a breeding ground for vermin and I'm not talking about the homosapien kind. Which brings up another point. Have any of the people wanting this ever seen what happens to these tunnels? I'll bet the local thugs can't wait to have another location for tagging. And what about security? This town has already shown it has a number of freaks roaming the bike path. What a great idea to give them a place to keep the weather off their heads while prowling for their next victim.

Here is a better solution that will actually turn a profit. Put a cop out there and ticket people for speeding, every day, every night, regardless of weather or the time of day. People will either A. slow down, or B. we will generate enough revenue to build the mother of all tunnels and pay for upkeep and a rent-a- cop to keep the taggers away.

Thanks, MOCO. I think that since YOU can afford the taxes, and since YOU think that we should have a tunnel, and since YOU use the bike trail, we should ALL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? I'm sure the general public going through economic hardships appreciate your compassion.
THANKS.

Seriously, even if a tunnel came without inherent problems, the cost is too outrageous for its purpose.

And the tunnel WILL come with inherent problems: It'll require expensive maintainance and it'll be a hidden area where the worst kind of human behavior will take place.

avidreader: I understand that we should teach our kids before we reach the curb and I have and will continue to enforce this idea. It is sort of shortsighted on your part not to take into acount the childs age. A 3 or 4 year old can get distracted rather easily thus slowing things down. It was simply a point that not everyone gets across at the same pace.

Why the heck does everything get takes so literally?

I'm starting to hope it passes just to piss you all off if for no better reason.

I can afford the taxes!

Put a red light there. Motorists might have a chance to see Beth Wheelock's tatooed tootsies.

As I stated earlier: The city would save money and the hiking experience would be enhanced if hikers were required to pole vault across Milwaukee Street.

Wow, where does one begin with all this?
Yes there is a potential safety hazard here. But a high priced tunnel is not the only possible solution. That flashing yellow light, how much would it cost to change it to solid red?

There are a lot of valid arguements here with a bunch of crazy reasonings to the arguements.

For the potential parents, who are at the intersection, trying to keep an eye on their kids, and traffic, and trying to teach the kids safe crossing, and the need to hurry across.....you need to teach the kids before you get there and step off the curb, and not wait til you are half way across dodging cars.

To those who think there is no potential danger to be had in the tunnel once it has been built...where have you been the past few years? Numerous assaults and attacks on that trail.

To those who say we only need a tunnel here because it is the most dangerous intersection, what happens after it is built? Well, now another intersection is the most dangerous one, better put a tunnel there too.

Everywhere you go, there is a potential that someone could get hurt or killed, not just at this crossing.
We need to start enforcing the laws that are already there to protect people, instead of spending even more money building a safety feature that we wouldn't need if the laws were enforced.

Get rid of laws that should be more of a personal choice than what is best for the people, and add laws that really do protect and serve.

Make it illegal to speed down the road and talk on your cell phone..oh wait, speeding is illegal, my bad.

Pull the task force out of screamin meemee's ( if 2 consenting adults wanna touch, who cares, if you don't wanna see it, don't go there), and put the task force on Milwaukee street, checking people's speed, and ticketing them.

You have a better chance of being taken out by a drunk driver than getting ran over at that intersection, because the lawmakers seem to think ticketing them, and revoking their license will cure them from ever driving drunk again.

How about letting all the laid off crossing guards patrol that intersection?

What we need to do is find away to make this crossing safe by slowing the drivers down, not build a tunnel, and tell these drivers it is ok to speed, we will just spend a bunch of money we don't have, and divert the pedestrians under your speeding death machines.

I for one am tired of the few people on the city council getting to decide how to spend the money of thousands of people.

Doesn't anybody remember the road that G.M. just had to have to make delivering their parts easier? Reuther Way is gonna come in real handy in a few years isn't it?

lakennedy: Thank you for the link but I have already contacted city council. Why on earth would you assume that I hadn't? We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You have valid points and so do I. We will not come to a common ground on this. I trust that city council will make the right decision and stand by what they have already approved!

I'm with you on that one.

Where should we re-route the trail to? I suggest the city of "Common Sense" so that people can stop in and learn how to cross a street without sending a bill of nearly half a million dollars to a taxpayer base that is facing several severe economic drawbacks.

We could have two branches...kind of like the two tees in golf..the daring ones can cross at the present location...the wooses can use the ladies tee...

Re-route the trail.

Which is fine, bucksandy, but if you support the tunnel and are frustrated with "straw man" arguments against it, I not only ask what argument you are acting on behalf of since NO ONE HAS GOTTEN HURT IN THIS AREA, YET YOU ARE ASKING FOR NEARLY A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN CASE SOMEONE DOES GET HURT, I additionally ask, that before you urge the council to approve this allocation of taxpayer money--without a referendum--for a tunnel that will exist for pure recreational use that you please, at least, SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF A REAL SAFETY ISSUE here. Please show me why this crossing, in particular, deserves a tunnel before other areas in Janesville. While you're at it, please send a letter to the editor explaining the tax increase you so adamently support to keep people safe in an area where no one has been injured, but "just in case someone gets hurt" to not only the senior citizens of this city, but to the other taxpayers who have concerns regarding this kind of expenditure during a time of economic crisis. I hardly think that this is too much to ask from you considering what you are asking from us.

I am in favor of the tunnel. Having regularly used that part of the trail regularly both running and biking, it is clear something should be done. That intersection is dangerous and scary. I agree, total responsibility on the part of both trail users and motorists would be the best solution, but unfortunately I don't think that's realistic. I understand that the tunnel isn't popular with some people, and there are valid arguments on both sides, however, there are some arguments I take issue with that have been brought up here.

First, many people have brought up the straw-man agrument that people will want tunnels under every street. This crossing is more dangerous than others on the trail, and that's why something needs to be done here. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting a tunnel under each crossing.

Second, comparing this to the Racine St. trail crossing is not valid. Racine St. is an intersection of two streets that has a four way STOP light, unlike the Milwaukee St. crossing which is just a trail with flashing yellow lights that are often ignored.

Lastly, it's been suggested that the council needs to look at more options and not automatically go with the tunnel. If people paid attention, they would know that the council did consider many options, and ample opportunity was given for public comment.

Sorry for being wordy, but a lot of these comments have bothered me. I understand being against the tunnel, but having a valid reason and alternatives would make for better discussion.

lakennedy,
The roundabout option is cheaper than lights at the Wuthering Hills/Milwaukee Street intersection. I would prefer the roundabout, but I don't think it will have any effect on the bike path crossing.

Note that both a consultant and the Public Works Director recommend reducing Milwaukee Street, east of Wright Road, from 4 lanes to 3, with a middle turn lane. The traffic volume does not justify a need for 4 lanes in that section. I know the reduction of lanes at Wright Road north of Hwy 14, and at the south end of Milwaukee street (towards downtown) have made me more conscious of the speed I travel. Too bad there wasn't more discussion of the cost and other changes required to reduce the lanes.
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2008/jun...

If motorists would realize, it is the law to stop for pedestrains in a cross walk, none of this would be an issue. They don't. Build the tunnel!

in a slow economy i think we should encourage people and gov'ts to spend money. if we all stop spending money i can pretty much promise you a 'R'. i wont say it;)

Stop lights and 4-way stop signs are a bad idea at that intersection. People blow through them all the time in Janesville (in case you havne't noticed) and another bad accident could happen there because of it.

I drive past this intersection every day and see the cars speed by WITH the yellow lights flashing AND more than one person in the crosswalk. I myself have crossed at this crosswalk with cars paying little to no regard for who is there. This tunnel is definitely NOT a mistake. The mistake was that it was not added when the trail was built. How come no one was complaining about the cost then? I urge everyone to contact the city council and voice your SUPPORT for this tunnel.

Alright,
I understand that there are many bloggers on here that don't agree with me, but I just wanted to say that our city has been dealt some pretty crappy cards lately with GM leaving and with the flooding that has affected so many of us. This is one area that we all have some control, a voice to let the council know how we feel. I don't think I'm alone in my arguments (my many arguments) posted on this page. If you agree with me and feel that this tunnel is a mistake, I ask that you please take the time and contact the council before Monday's meeting. Their contact information is as follows:

citycouncil@ci.janesville.wi.us

They need to hear from you!!!

I'm all for exploring that, Zoom. But what do you think about putting stop lights in on Wuthering Hills and E. Milwaukee?

An idea was also proposed to changed all of Milwaukee street east of Wright Road from 4 lanes to 3, with the middle lane as a turning lane. That would slow traffic. How much would new lines on the road and maybe some signage cost?

tjncj,
The link you posted was for the Wuthering Hills intersection.

Again, there was the proposal to narrow Milwaukee Street only at the bike path, for a cost of $102K (see my link earlier). What does anyone think about that?

That $680,000 doesn't seem right. That's the cost of like five houses. I know you can't trust everything you find on the internet, but the numbers I was finding were on other states' web pages. The highest number I found was on a page for Palmdale, CA, and that was $250,000-$500,000. Enforce the traffic laws, for the cyclists and the motorists. Teach people responsibility and accountability. It will benefit all of us in countless other ways.

Many many ideas here I see. I like the speed bump idea myself. Those are something that really wake you up if you go too fast!

Under normal economic conditions the "tunnel" would be a very welcome have fun, feel good project. The problem is economic times ahead are "choppy" at best. There undoubtedly will be places the money is far more needed in the future.

Honestly I believe a solid red light vs a flashing yellow and a little enforcement would go a long way. I drive that stretch every single day and have lived there for 20 plus years and cannot tell you the last time I saw anyone pulled over. I also cannot remember the last time I saw anyone going the speed limit.

we better get a tunnel on liberty lane RIGHT AWAY. I lady was crossing the street at the mall near JC PENNY to get to the parking lot by the mall hill during Christman and was run over and killed!!!!!

$680,000 for traffic lights, $440,000 for a roundabout.
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2008/jun...

I did a very quick search, and a rough estimate of the cost of stop signs is $500, for two stop signs, posts, and hardware. If people aren't satisfied with stop signs (some may say that people could just run through a stop sign), then how about speed bumps? Again, a very quick search found that installing speed bumps could be between $1500 and $3500. Quite a huge difference when compared to the $600,000 (or $300,000 depending on how you look at it) that the city would spend for a tunnel. It was harder to find any info about traffic lights, but I found one estimate to be $80,000-$100,000 to install, plus about $1400 a year to run.

Do you think that these lights on the Wuthering Hills and E. Milwaukee Street would have a positive effect on the crossing area for the bike trail?

Also, in lieu of the accidents at this particular intersection, do you believe that these lights will be installed in the future, anyway?

I believe they are $750-$800K. It seems like aridiculous price, but I am no expert. The costs were on an earlier story.

How much are they tjncj? I don't have access to these numbers.

I understand that you feel that safety is the main necessity here and that "something" needs to be done, and that you agree that other options may be viable to solving the problem, but my question is: Why does the council go with a tunnel automatically? Because of that ridiculous grant, thats why. It still leaves a huge tax burden on the taxpayers. Your earlier posts say: "..the naysayers can suck it up and deal with it." That's the issue, here. Economically speaking, we SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. I agree that GM doesn't run this city, but while you sit there and say that my refusal to acknowledge the safety issue, which I don't recognize because NO ONE HAS GOTTEN HURT HERE, is a load of crap, I say that it is a load of crap for you to choose to not recognize the impact GM's leaving has on our local economy. We both agree that there are other viable options available, so my question is why aren't YOU contacting the city council and telling them you'd like to see these other options pursued?

vetman-believe it or not, lights are MORE than $670,000.

i don't think right now would be a great time to spend 670,000. if there is a cheaper way of doing it like putting up a stop light.
the lets do that instead. with the economics being were they are. with gas prices keep going up faster then normal lose of jobs in Janesville and Janesville area. This is hurting the residents of Janesville. to add more to their plate right now is not called for if there is a cheaper way of doing this. If it truly needs to be done. There are going to be stupid people out there that are not going to obey the rules. If you put a stop light out there and the user must push a button to get the red light to come on than that sounds cheaper. And if people can't wait for the light to come on then it to bad what happens happens. Don't push people out of the city by taxing them on things that are not needed.

lakennedy: I live on the street near that intersection. How can I prove to you that people speed. Seeing to sport bikes doing 70+ a few weeks ago isn't enough. I usually am going around 35mph and I get passed like I'm not even moving. Let's see, I've seen countless accidents at Milwuakee and Pontiac, why most of them are because of people speeding up to get through that yellow light.

As I have stated, I am for the tunnel but if there is a better alternative that is less expensive lets do it. Going down to 1 lane is a great idea, that part of the street does not need to be 2 lanes. Putting the roundabout in a block down will also slow the traffic. I'm all for both of those things that would save the $ 800K. My argument is that something needs to change. Just because you have made it through safely dozens of times does not mean everyone else has. You may be traveling through at a less busy time of day. To sit there and blindly say that nothing needs to be done is a load of crap. There is more weight to the argument of doing something than nothing at all. Safety should always come first.

Also, I'll say it again. GM does not run this city! Who cares if GM is shutting down and the tax base may be lessened. What will happen we all have to pitch in an extra 5 bucks for this over time??????

I'll say it again. I'm an avid biker and have crossed at that intersection hundreds of times with no problems, whatsoever. I have, however, seen a couple near accidents when some yahoo decides to blow through the intersection at about 20 MPH on their bike (while I was on the side waiting for an opening in traffic)

Yes - cars need to obey the traffic laws and yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Bikers, rollerbladers and pedestrians also need to remember that there is a "stop" sign there that should be obeyed - with corresponding enforcement if it is not.

The tunnel is a BAD idea - regardless of the financial situation. A little responsibility by all involved solves the problem.

Excellent points, jacmarien.
Hopefully the council members are listening...

And, I'm sorry, I just thought of something else, but a bike path is recreational. I don't take my kids on a bike path, we bike around our neighborhood, and we stay on residential streets. I don't take them across busy, dangerous roads. This is a lot of money to spend for something recreational. I keep thinking of how high our taxes could get and how low our property values could go when all this crazy GM stuff takes effect, and yikes people! There will be less employed people in Janesville to pay for stuff like this. Not to mention all the help suddenly unemployed people are going to need just to get food on their tables.

If Step A was patroling and enforcing traffic laws on East Milwaukee Street, that has not been done.
********************************************
If Step B was fully prosecuting the fool going 60 miles an hour and killing a woman that also was not done.
********************************************
If Step C was not having two flashing yellow lights on the same street have totally different meanings, that also was not done.

I believe that other options have been discussed: round abouts, speed bumps, and stop lights. I don't know why they were not elected as alternatives. I do think that the grant has a lot to do with it. You should e-mail Mr. McDonald, he seems to be on top of this issue, and I'm sure he'd be willing to help. mcdonaldt@ci.janesville.wi.us

I would not let my kids cross at an intersection where I truly believed there was was a high probability that someone would come racing through so fast that I would not be able to get them across in time. There is always a possibility that it could happen anywhere. Maybe the problem for me is that I'd like to know what steps were taken to solve this traffic problem before building the tunnel. Does anyone know? If they have already tried A, B, and C and cars are still not slowing down, then build your tunnel. But if nothing has been done, then maybe park a squad car there and earn some of the money for the tunnel by ticketing the irresponsible drivers.

MOCO, You think I'm taking it to the extreme, but I'd argue that you are. NO ONE has been hurt here, right? What EVIDENCE do you have that someone is more likely to get hurt here then at another intersection? I'd argue with the publicity that this tunnel has gotten would make that area much more noticed, thus creating less of a dangerous crossing.
Also, your scenerio that someone is going twenty miles over the speed limit is faulty at best. I could use the same scenerio at any other intersection to get my point across.
I need ACTUAL EVIDENCE from you, not possibilities.

I'm not sure, Kid. But I do know that the area by Dawson is very congested during softball season.

jacmarien: I agree with what you are saying but wouldn't you also agree that the odd's are greater because this is 4 lane road that is rather busy? I agree an accident can happen anywhere but is it an accident if someone is traviling 20-30 mph over the speed limit? Take this for instance: A family of 4, two parents and two children ages 4 and 6. Three cars stopped as noted in the earlier posts. Mom and dad are trying their hardest to get the kids to pay attention and walk but the kids have minds of their own and move slowly. The fact that it is taking them a little longer to get across the street now allows time for the 4th driver who is on a cell phone, doing 20mph over the limit. This situation is really not far out of the realm of possibility. Kids do not always understand the reasons for moving quickly and paying attention to traffic. Parents are busy tyring to teach their kids and get them across the street at the same time. They could easily overlook the 4th IDIOT that is not paying attention. I understand both sides but I firmly believe that there can't be a price put on this. Don't take it to the extreme that lakennedy has and say we need it at every intersection where people can get hurt. Look at the most dangerous intersections and fix them, not all of them. I travel and live on this road as well as use the bike path. It is a very busy and dangerous intersection and drivers are plain stupid.

i stated i think, i just get on the trail an blade, not remembering the details:) do you think there is as much traffic as milwaukee at those intersections??

MOCO428, I understand what you're saying, but cars don't just appear at an intersection out of thin air. Unless the view would otherwise be blocked, say by a large curve, or trees, or a fence or something like that, you can see them coming. And if someone is hearing impaired or visually impaired, then that is a risk for them at any intersection. If hearing impaired, they will use their eyes more. If visually impaired, they will use their ears more, or guide, plus they should have the red and white striped stick (I'm sorry I don't know what it's called) that would alert drivers. But again, if a driver is irresponsible and dangerous, that would be a factor at any intersection.

Zoom: If 3 cars had time to stop why not the 4th. It sounds as if the 4th car blew by well after the other 3 had stopped. I think that is the point that many are trying to make. The pedestians view may be blocked by the 3 card that did stop and the 4th car that doesn't could hit them. Did anyone ever stop to thing about people that may be visually or hearing impaired that may not hear that 4th car or see that 4th car like a person with all of their senses???

Really? All other intersections? How about the one on Beloit Avenue by Dawson? That doesn't. Or how about the street crossing on Ruger by Brakefield? No lights there, either.

i think all the other intersections(other than the one just north of milwaukee) have crosswalks, stoplights, pedestrian lights. this is one of the busiest streets with only a yellow light and im reminded of the old movie starman 'red means stop, green means go, yellow means go faster':)

Has anybody thought that the tunnel might become a hangout for kids that maybe shouldn't be hanging out at the tunnel? How about a traffic light that only turns red if a button is pushed? That's got to be cheaper.

kid,
I hear your argument, but what about the other intersections? Since no one has been hurt at this crossing, and we're putting in a tunnel to prevent the possibility; shouldn't we be putting tunnels in to address that same possibility of harm that exists at EVERY intersection here in Janesville?

racine st ALREADY has crosswalks, stoplights, and pedestrian 'walk' lights. milwuakee has yellow lights that some drivers stop at, and some dont.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that nothing needs to be done. This matter needs attention, to be sure. I am sorry to say that money is finite. You can't just keep ringing up the bill whenever you want. If you see someone driving dangerously, write down their plate number and report it. The police will montior where it is dangerous. Put up speed bumps, crossing gates (if it's less money). Don't immediately try to solve the problem by throwing thousands of dollars at it. I agree with lakekennedy that it's a form of enabling to the dangerous drivers. They'll just keep speeding and hit a kid a few blocks down the road from the bike trail. What woud that solve?

There is an option to reduce the road to two lanes at the crosswalk. The cost is $102K.
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2008/jun...

Good for you. What about the person who was killed at the E. Racine Street intersection because we put a tunnel in on E. Milwaukee Street instead? I hope you mentioned that person.

Also, I hope you mentioned the message being sent to the drivers. We'll let you continue to have no regard for pedestrians, you won't be punished. If we were to force the drivers to become more aware of pedestrians, then the safety issue would be addressed universally--making all intersections safer, not just the one that was deemed important enough to get a tunnel JUST IN CASE SOMEONE GETS HURT.

zoom id agree that the riders/bladers/walkers are just as irresponsible as the drivers. hmmmm...maybe we should build a tunnel and take both possibilities out of the equation...

like most discussions, there are valid logical points on both sides. i just think its a small price to pay for safety. one time, thats all it takes is one time, and this convo and peoples perspective switch completely....

djla69 said: "I drive over that area every day and have personally seen three near misses because every car stops but one and bikes go across and almost get hit because someone driving is not paying attention."

It sounds like the bike rider was not paying attention, by failing to wait until traffic stopped.

Thanks for the adresses lakennedy, I just contacted the city council. I said don't let the naysayers sway you. You approved it, now hold your course. If you reverse the decision you will never be able to forgive yourselves after the first person is killed.

KEEP CONTACTING THE COUNCIL MEMBERS!!! THEY'RE LISTENING. CONTACT INFO. LISTED BELOW.

Yes, Kid. I agree. But at the same time throughout this blog there have been points raised that there are other dangerous intersections throughout this city, are we really prepared to put a tunnel in all of these areas as well?
You can NOT put a price tag on a life, Kid, and yes, there are awful drivers out there. That being said, this tunnel being built does not address or rectify the threat posed by these drivers. There will always be the threat of danger at any intersection. The crosswalk in question does have blinking lights, like the others you speak of. Why not install stop lights with buttons that will force drivers to come to a complete stop?
This expenditure is too large right now. It doesn't address the real issue: unsafe drivers, instead, I argue that it enables them. By saying "Well, instead of punishing you for not following the rules of the road, we'll just spend $670,000 to go under you," we send a message that we tolerate this type of driving, and that drivers don't have to make any concessions for pedestrians.

To all that think lights are inexpensive, refer back to the orginal article about the intersectoin of Milwaukee and Wuthering Hills. The lights at one intersection cost more than a round about. There needs to be power brought in, programming with other lights, sensors installed etc.... Lights are not cheaper and are not as effective. That point can't even be argued!

long_time: You are 100% correct about the spin that I put on it. I agree with it and don't mind it. We will NOT notice this amount in our taxes!

On another note: When GM bashers bring GM into a post that has nothing to do with it they get chastized; but when a pro GM'er brings them into the post where they don't belong we are supposed listen.

Just because GM is shutting down does not mean it is irresponsible to put this tunnel in. How would you propose the city spend that $800K that would help GM or any industry for that matter. This city will not shut down because of this loss and should not operate any differently! Will it have an impact on the area, sure, but to not put a bike tunnel in because of GM is ludicrous.

... and I sent an email to the council members as suggested, thank you lakekennedy for the good advice and for the email addresses. I sent in some alternate ideas like speed bumps and warning signs and police monitoring, and I also thought to mention that our population will probably be reduced quite a bit in the next couple years with these businesses closing down. That will cut down on traffic and automatically make everything safer. Tom McDonald is on the ball today, because he replied very quickly to me as well, lakekennedy.

Yes you can put a price on safety. I have three small children. Electrical outlets can be very dangerous to little children. I can either buy the little 50-cent plastic pieces to plug up the outlets, or I can spend a few thousand dollars to move all the electrical outlets to the ceiling. What did all of you do for your children?

Excellent points, Red & billnewbie. Does anyone know if these options have even been raised as alternatives to the tunnel by the council?

I don't care how much it costs. Build it now!! As stupid as a lot of drivers are when it comes to that crossing I've also seen a lot of bike trail users not any smarter. I've seen walkers not even attempt to stop at the crossing and just walk out in the road. There is way too much traffic on the street for there not to be a tunnel. I'd rather see the city spend $700,000 now than have to dish out millions in a lawsuit later when someone gets killed. We are a sue happy nation and regardless of who would have been at fault you know the city will get blamed and will be paying out. Tunnel...YES. Roundabout down the street....also YES.

i dont mean to trivialize it lakennedy. im a taxpayer i understand. but you seem to be trivializing the safety. if a speeder/texter/daydreamer, whether they are 60 or 16, hits a 5 yr old whose family just moved to town at that intersection, would you want to tell them the good news is that they will save a little money on their property taxes?? i believe all the other intersections other than the one just north of the one in question, have crosswalks and stoplights. this one has a flashing yellow that some people stop at, and some dont. you can put a price on safety, but not a life.

tjncj has a valid point. Flashing yellow does not mean STOP. Is there a reason why a walker/biker activated stop light can't be placed there--the light remains green until the walk button is activated, which then goes from yellow to red, just like other stop lights? If there was a light there and another one at Wuthering Hills drive, both would serve to slow traffic. Both have to be less expensive than a tunnel and round about; either of those options could be done later if these less expensive options don't work. Something does need to be done--the status quo is not an option.

Alright, Zoom. I just heard back from Councilman McDonald. The $80,000 for the water main relocation IS included in the $670,000.

What we need is a traffic law enforcement campaign by the Janesville Police. I have never seen such a high concentration of drivers in an area with such little respect for traffic signals or consideration for others as in this city, even in the presence of policemen on patrol. Even some of the city garbage truck drivers ignore changing signals with impunity. Now there's a potential liability that would make a tunnel look inexpensive.

Excellent point, djla69. Unfortunately, we can put a price tag on safety. This one says $670,000. Not to mention that following the logic of the pro-tunners, someone else MIGHT get hurt at the other hundreds of intersections in the city, so we should just go ahead and allocate additional funds to offset that possiblity and put in a complete network of tunnels under the city so that no one has to worry about looking both ways when crossing a street!! Great Plan!

It is really amazing to me the amount of people that have the time to sit and complain all day about positive aspects of our community such as fireworks and bike tunnels...

Regarding the Milwaukee Street tunnel proposal - while it seems a little expensive - it will be worth it. I believe it will save someone's life.

I drive over that area every day and have personally seen three near misses because every car stops but one and bikes go across and almost get hit because someone driving is not paying attention.

You cannot put a price on safety - if we are going to have a community where we have bike paths crossing major through ways - they should be made safe, protecting the drivers and the bikers/joggers.

OK - enough with rape talk...lets take the scrap from GM when the plant closes in a few weeks, and use the girders, etc, to constuct a bridge OVER Milwaukee Street for the bike trail.
*
How appropo would that be? Then, we can hang city banners from the "GM Bike Bridge" declaring, Janesville, City of Parks - Visit Slip n' Slide Park (former GM site).
*
There, 3 birds with one stone.
*
4, if you count the tax savings.
*
5, if you count the decrease in rapes from eliminating the bike tunnel.

Kid, I don't know if you've been around for the