Residents oppose planned bike tunnel

I urge all citizens of Janesville keep a close eye on this issue. Contact your city council (yes even if you are for the tunnel), and let them know how you feel before they vote on the financing.

There are very mixed opinions on the tunnel on this page alone. I think that it is a definite sign that the issue needs to be looked at more closely by the council before allocating nearly half a million dollars of tax payer money for a recreational path during a time of economic instability.

Brad..
If you'd read the rest of this blog page, you'd find more than enough reasons not to do it. You, yourself, just provided us with one. You pointed out the necessity of needing a tunnel in the Grant Ave. intersection. There are numerous intersections that are dangerous. There is no evidence that this area is any more dangerous than the Beloit Avenue crossing, the Grant Ave. crossing, etc.

I live in that neighborhood, and I don't see why a roundabout would even be practical. I mean there is a fire station right there, what are they going to do if they need to respond to an emergency? Also, that intersection is not nearly as dangerous as the intersection at S. Grant and Schaller. At least Milwaukee and Wuthering Hills has stop signs, the intersection on S. Grant is completely uncontrolled. I have seen way too many accidents on Grant Ave. but have only seen/heard of a few on Milwaukee. Before they do anything on Milwaukee St. they should first do something on Grant Ave. About the bike tunnel, I don't see why the shouldn't do it. The road already dips down right there, so it would seem that hard to build a tunnel under the street. I am all for the tunnel but I am strongly against the roundabout.

stevev, glad you wear your helmet, as well as your kids, but the city of Janesvill did not have to foot the bill for those helmets, so that arguement doesn't really fly here. Wearing a bike helmet is not the law, driving the speed limit, and yielding to pedestrians is!

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?

How about enforcing the laws in place? Yeild to pedestrians means yield. pretty much common sense folks. Waste of money that could be spent elsewhere. A tunnel isn't going to make people move here.

mbird425: Like Zoom said, "I hope you folks talking about a bridge are trying to be funny. If not, read the article." Building an overpass bridge cost more.

thats the problem with print. you cant feel the sarcasm. even if there was a toll it would still have to be built first at the taxpayers expense. which brings us back to the current discussion. my two flaws render the possibility of a toll pretty much senseless to anyone who isnt, which should have been enough to highlight the fact that i was joking, but i have accused others of joking and not letting me know, so in future posts i will follow that up with a lol or lmao or a ;) or whatever so you know when im messin with ya:) there is NO WAY a toll would ever work, you could absolutely charge for a 'trail pass', and then pay someone part time to troll the trail and make sure we all have passes, but whats the point of having a public trail all the way thru town, if you have to pay to use it?? were suppose to be encouraging people to save energy, not charging them for it.

Hey KID,,, You get on me for not thinking cause I said to collect a toll and then later you say your on board about collecting a toll but have two reservaions...
What exactly does this mean...that you were not thinkin????

ok how about putting up signs, kinda like the ones they have in madison, around MATC. They say Yield to Pedestrians

Seabee, we humans don't have to be hippie's or environmental extremists to do basic math. The CO2 content of OUR atmosphere has increased 35% since infernal combustion was mass produced. In 1950 the world population was 2.5 billion, 2010 projected is 6.8, 2050 projected is 9.1 billion. All these people wanting more energy..........how DENSE can we get and still live here?

Foxy, your absolutely right. I commute bicycle across that intersection everyday and I don't want a tunnel. That's just one intersection.......Wright Rd, Ruger, HWY 11, Beloit Ave, where would the tunneling stop? It would be better for EVERYONE to put the money into the streets, not one location that affects few. I can list several potholes you can drop a basketball into........let's fix those.

Why not just build one of those cross over sidewalks like they have in Milwaukee and Madison? That goes up and over and is merely a sidewalk with rails. I'd rather ride over and be seen than to ride through and not know who is sitting and waiting for their next prey!!!!

According to the hippies, the world is over-populated and being rapidly destroyed by greenhouse gasses and the huge carbon footprint each of us has. So I believe, for the sake of the planet, that the city council has a duty to remove the speed limit from e. milwaukee street and also remove the pedestrian crossing signs. In this way we may get a few fatalities, thereby reducing population, reducing the carbon footprints and greenhouse gasses, and at the same time we will be doing our part to save the planet and a few hundred thousand dollars. Where is Al Gore when I really need him?

For those of you who insist on saying that they live near the bike trail and use it all the time... I can see why you would be in favor of a tunnel. However, would you like to hear the rest of Janesville resident start complaining that the trail doesn't come near their home and Janesville should expand the bike trail more so we can vote on another redundant issue just to throw more taxes out the door? People should stop complaining about where the bike trail leads and just use COMMON SENSE! It's your life, you CHOOSE to cross a busy road just as one would attempt to cross any section of a busy area on Milton avenue. After all, what business is it to the city of Janesville if somebody got hurt? Let those drivers be responsible for the consequences and foot the bill if they can't watch for pedestrians as stated by law.

Just one more reason for the city to raise the taxes in this town. NO THANKS!!!!

yer implying that those who pay for it dont have common sense?? im all for yer pay to use plan, but it has two flaws, a) it needs to be paid for first and 2) once its built youll have to pay someone to collect for the passes. and youll have to pay someone to check the passes, so the scrooge mcducks of the world blessed with common sesne arent trying to take the safe route without a pass.....

A toll is actually a good idea.

Let's go to a "toll tunnel." Those who believe the safety is worth the price can pay for it...those who have the common sense to cross at the intersection can do so.

one last thought, how many parks does the 'city of parks' really need?? i really dont even know how many there are. if we had 10 less, or 5 less could we still call ourselves the 'city of parks'. parks my a$$, thats some prime real estate. if we gotta worry about a hundo a house i guess i didnt realize just how bad this is gonna get. ok, im switched, dont build the tunnel, lets sell some parks an stock pile some money. or better yet, give us all rebate checks once the parks are sold so we can go buy our kids an atari with frogger so they can actually see what happens if they dont watch traffic, or if the joystick jams;)

not sure:) i read it somewhere an it may have been about the roundabout intersection. my bad. i will tell you that ive crossed every intersection on that trail. and all others either have way less traffic, or currenty have stop lights. should every trail crossing have a tunnel?? not necessarily. its obviously not even feasible i would think at a four way intersection like racine st. i cant imagine an engineer wouldnt be worried about the structure. but the milwaukee st crossing IS busy with cars/trail users both, weve got 1/3 of it paid for by grant and the trail slopes up and then back down, which seems to me(not an engineer;) like an IDEAL place for a tunnel that will make the trail more user friendly, and evidence or not, unarguably safer, for prolly less than a hundo a house?? if this economic 'crisis' which we arent aware even how bad it will get;) has you worried about a hundo a house, then as well as being against the trail, yall should find where else we can trim some expenses. city of parks?? my a$$, thats some prime real estate. lets start selling off the smaller ones to generate some revenue. seriously how many parks does one town need

thekid...how did you come to the conclusion this is "the 'most dangerous intersection?"
.
Just curious.

i would never suggest one go without that cup of coffee a day, herbal tea for me thanks, but for less than a second cup of coffee, wouldnt you feel better knowing that even tho youll never use it, your friends kids, or yer neighbor, or someone you havent even met yet, or isnt even yet, will be able to cross the 'most dangerous intersection' without a thought of their safety??

It all boils down to a cost / benefit factor.
We have to come up with a bona fide formula to determine the risk / benefit...and cost / benefit factor and apply it to all risks throughout the city...until then...politics still sucks...

Kid, I prefer my one cup of coffee a day to helping foot the bill for a tunnel I will never use.

Why not pay for it now? Because we really have no idea how bad things will get once GM and their suppliers are gone. Our taxes will most certainly go up. Janesville needs to start being fiscally conservative now. Infrastructure is important. A bike path tunnel is not.

Kid-your math is right on, but unless there's 10 people living in every property, your 5000 number is probably quite low, which means that your $100 costs is high. Of course, how much you or I would actually pay is based on the value of our individual properties, but you're spot on in that the cost is low if you break it down to a "X cents per day" discussion.
lakennedy-I didn't mean to question your mothering skills, I was just making the point that you can never be too safe, whether you're talking about kids or adults. I feel that this trail crossing is an accident waiting to happen, just as I could fall off my bike while riding down the street in front of my house. Why not make the investment now, pay the small amount that each of us will have to pay, and have a safe environment at that crossing for the life of the trail?

Nero,
You might want to read this for the $102k option.
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2008/jun...

"Staff recommends two alternatives:
-- Build the tunnel, which would fix all of the safety concerns.
-- Remove a lane of traffic in each direction and build a pedestrian island. Messer said the two lanes would handle the 8,000 vehicles that travel the street daily. Typically in urban areas, a traffic count of 15,000 triggers four lanes.
The configuration, however, could mean more sideswipe and rear-end crashes as vehicles merge from two lanes to one lane and then stop for pedestrians. But those types of accidents typically cause less injury than a vehicle hitting a pedestrian, Messer said. The funneling also would help slow traffic.

Cost is estimated at $102,900."

"Reducing lanes
The consultant and Messer both recommend reducing the number of lanes on East Milwaukee Street from Wright Road to Highway 14 from four to three, with the third being a left turn lane.
The change would help reduce the speed of traffic along the corridor, Messer said.
Messer is looking for council authorization because it is considered a major change. Staff typically decides on pavement-marking changes."

Still no reporting on what it would cost to reduce the lanes.

Right. You may want to try your hardest to not personally attack or assume things about the people who hold different beliefs then you do, as it makes you sound beyond ignorant...

Me buying a helmet for my son is MY OWN EXPENSE. I'm not asking you, or the neighbor, or the retired lady down the street living on a fixed income to pitch in so that my son is safe.

Nice try, again. You're going to have to come up with better arguments than this though.

maybe just make it a pass with a state park sticker?? bethinkin cuz you havent ben;) you emailed the council to get those numbers?? name dropper;) now im not cpa, nor do i play one on tv, so if how taxes break down are completely dift someone please let me know. so it cost the taxpayers 435k approximately. for easy math lets round off and say 500k. population 60,000. i really have no idea how many 'properties' there are that would factor into this, but is 5000 a conservative estimate?? or am i waaay high, literally;). if those numbers are in the ballpark of the actual numbers my math tells me each property owner will average 100. thats dollars per property. i sound like sally struthers but thats less than a cup of coffee a day;). am i crazy?? my numbers must be WAAAAY off, cuz i really cant believe anyone would argue against it

OK, so I've never fallen off of my bike and hit my head. So based on lakennedy's thinking, I have no reason to wear a helmet while I'm biking. Afterall, there's no proof that I could fall off my bike because it's never happened before. I'm much wiser than that, though, so I wear a helmet, even though a good helmet cost me $30-40. If it costs me a few extra bucks a year to make sure NO ONE gets hit by a car at that intersection in the next 100 years, I'm willing to do that, just as I'm willing to pay to buy a helmet to protect my melon. I just wonder if lakennedy is one of those parents that lets their kids ride around on their bikes without helmets. Afterall, helmets cost money, and until one of her kids falls off their bike, there's no proof they could EVER be hurt.

Many recreational activities in Janesville collect fees. How about a tunnel sticker for all those who want to have it. It could be set up like the I pass in Illinois and take your photo and send you a bill if you use the tunnel without a pass.
I am sure that all those out there saying it's for safety and don't worry about the money will be 1st in line to buy the pass.

I'd love to give you that exact information, Kid, but I don't have that number. I did confirm, via e-mail with councilman McDonald the following:
The tunnels expected cost is to be $670,000.00. $235,000.00 comes from a grant. Leaving $435,000.00 for the city to deal with. While the councilman did confirm these numbers (to the best of his knowledge) he also reminded me that these were just estimates...
So it could be less, or it could be more.
I'm not privy to the exact impact for the individual taxpayer.
How about you go ahead an contact the council if you're so interested? I would, but you see, I'm sure the number is more than zero..which is what I'd be willing to spend.

i would agree, but how does one get across if not to go into traffic?? its one thing if im there and i wont miss a car thats coming and make sure theyre all stopped. put a 13 year old there and sees a car stopped because of his yellow. and he sees a car on the oppo side stopped as well. should he keep looking an make sure all cars are STOPPED, fo sho. is there a chance ANY 13 year old could see that scene and ASSUME the 3rd car is gonna stop, when in actuality the 3rd cars phone is buzzing and he knows its here somewhere.....

the real question is why wasnt this built when the trail was, but thats irrelevant at this point, double the cost of the tunnel and its STILL a no brainer. you never told me lakennedy, what will this cost the individual property owner??

You folks want to see a real nightmare concerning your kids safety? Go stand by the Racine street itersection with Randall around lunch and at 3:15 on school days.
It will make your hair stand up, but no one is addressing this one...Instead we jump on the tunnel bandwagon for some feel good, hey look at what we did money throwing...

I used the street-sweeper as an example that the city can be sued for negligent action, nothing more. It's not the same, obviously. Apples to oranges and all that. If there are other, less costly alternatives, there are none mentioned in the article above. The fact remains that cities have been sued in the past for failure to act on dangerous intersections. Wether or not the intersection in question is truly dangerous or not doesn't matter. The city has admitted as much by bringing this proposal to table.

As evidence to the cities liability in this issue, I point to the the city of Gilroy, CA. The city of Gilroy paid a $130,000 out of court to the parents of Brayan Trejo. Brayan was struck and killed in 2006 at an intersection that the city had previously identified as dangerous. While the specifics of the accident are widely different, the legal precedent stands. For more info see the link.
.
<li>http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/238937-wrongful-death-claim-settled-in-gilroy</li>

I'd argue that your kid shouldn't be in the road in front of oncoming traffic, kid.

Hey, Stevev..
The tunnel still hasn't been approved for full funding, buddy. I wouldn't go and count my eggs yet..

Now that there is just plain funny...

it would help if we all slowed down even WHEN;) we get the tunnel, absolutely, but is my kid hurt less because the 16/25/38/50 year old unaware driver was going the speed limit??

Why are we even still discussing this. The tunnel has been approved by the city council. Apparently the huge public outrage about the tunnel consisted of about 10 people. And the only people that lakennedy has spoken to don't think the tunnel is important in these "tough economic times." Obviously none of us on here count in lakennedy's very scientific poll.

How about those parents send their children down to the intersection of Wright Rd. and E. Milwaukee Street to cross? (The children going to Marshall would have to cross this intersection, anyways), and I seriously hope that no parent is sending their elementary aged children to school alone on that bike trail.
**

i have sat at the corner of this bike path and have counted about 600 Kids that tried to get to school by using the bike trail/path the parents told me that they wich the city of janesville put a tunnl in and that was about 80% of the parents the kids that i have interveiwed said that if the tunnul was put in that there parents would let them ride to school on ther bike alone. the numbers that i am talking about is based on a wenter time. they told me also that if i was to get a list for names they would sign it that was all the ones that i interviewed said.

JCK,
You did misunderstand. You see, education holds value for each and every citizen of this city. Furthermore, the very premise of this argument is to avoid adding additional taxes for something used by a select segment of the population...Things like stop lights and education are either used by every citizen of the city, or benefit every citizen of the city. The bike trail does not. It is recreational, and I'll not argue against the value it holds for Janesville. A tunnel, and the subsequent costs are not necessary. Understand that it is your choice to use the trail, it is your choice to cross at what you deem to be a dangerous crossing area...(despite lack of evidence), and it is your chioce to not use the fully functioning stop lights located right down the street. I'm seeing a lot of arguments highlighting the benefits of exercise that are associated with the trail...well how about you add an extra quarter mile to that exercise regiment and go down to the stoplights? It's a win-win. You'd be healthier, and we wouldn't be poorer.

Fixed income....code for social security....the new deal deal....how ironic

You're absolutely right about the functioning stop lights at the Racine Street/Palmer crossing, come to think of it, those lights remind me of another set...a set not so far from the bike trail crossing...could the set I'm thinking of be the very ones at the intersection of Wright Rd. and E. Milwaukee Street? Yep, that's what I'm thinking of. Doesn't it make sense for those nervous or concerned about safety to walk down to that intersection and cross the street using those "functioning" stoplights?

...and there are other, less costly, "reasonable" solutions.

Yes, you are no lawyer. If a lawsuit was even a possibility, the city wouldn't allow the path to cross the street. And how can you even compare a runaway street sweeper to someone walking in front of a moving vehicle?

To the best of my knowledge, no tunnel has been formally proposed for E. Racine St. Furthermore the E. Racine St is controlled by a fully functioning stop light at an intersection with another roadway. Apples to oranges and all that.
.
My argument isn't that the intersection is any more or less dangerous than any other in the city. However, the city has felt the need to install a tunnel, presumably for the safety of the of those on using the bike path. This is fact, even if the "need" isn't. When some doe-eyed 14 year old girl gets hit by an inattentive driver doing 45 mph, a self serving ambulance chaser would do his or her best to make it seem as if both the driver and the city were negligent.
.
In this instance, negligence is defined as: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. I am no lawyer, but I'd think there is enough of a legal precedent to include the city in such action given the history of the proposal. Cities, counties, states and even the Federal Government can be and have been sued for negligence in the past. In fact, Janesville just settled out of court in the Run-Away Street Sweeper incident.
.
By identifying a problem, proposing a solution and then failing to act in a "reasonable" manner and time frame, the city will open themselves up to potential litigation that would be very costly to the cities liability insurance provider. While the insurance provider would pay any settlement, the city would risk higher premiums or being dropped by their carrier altogether.

The argument that people don't benefit from schools is silly. Educating our children allows them to work, pay taxes (for silly tunnels), and pay into social security, so you have some money when you retire.

The city won't be party to a lawsuit if someone gets hurt at the crossing. By that logic, someone could sue the city at any intersection after an accident.

Alright, Nero, then what about that poor kid who gets hit and dies at the crossing on E. Racine St? We didnt put a tunnel in there, and looked what happened, right? Well, there is the same amount of evidence that we need to have a tunnel there as we do here...none.

P.S. The city isn't held liable for the driver's actions...otherwise we'd all be broke. If you're argument is that the city can be sued for recognizing the problem but failing to act...
1. There is no "problem" to recognize, because (yes, I'll write it again) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS AREA IS ANY MORE DANGEROUS.
and
2. By using this same argument, I'll be sure that the city takes the blame for the first assault to take place in the tunnel, as the problem has been pointed out...and the city failed to act on it.

lady, my bad the story is about the tunnel and I incorrectly assumed the stats related to the story and you were refering to that area because that's what the story is about.
But you still haven't explained to me why I should pay taxes for schools, roads I don't use and the bus system among other things I can name which have no partical value to me. A part of your position appeared to be that your grandmother shouldn't have to pay taxes for something she'll never use. Did I misunderstand that too?

whybesad - I also drive past that crossing daily and am surprised that you "rarely" see anybody using it. I also use the trail and know first hand the disregard motorists have for the flashing yellow lights. This tunnel is long overdue.

So, if the tunnel doesn't go in, how long until someone get hit? One year? Three? Five? Will the family and/or victim remember this very debate and sue the city for identifying the problem but failing to act? How much will that lawsuit cost us then? Not to mention, the city will then put the darn tunnel in anyway without the benefit of the grant.
.
Kudos to people getting involved. Regardless of our different opinions on this matter, this is the way our government should work. Identify a project, debate it's merits, determine a direction, execute the action dictated and then move on to the next issue.

Sorry, I meant JCK should get his facts straight,.

Nope. Steveev, those accidents were at the intersection of E. Milwaukee and Whuthering Hills.

JCK: Just exactly what street and crossing are you referring to? You stated: "police have reported 11 (accidents) in the past 8 years with 5 injuries and a fatality". Those statistics are not related to the bike trail crossing Milwaukee Street. If you are referring to the whole length of Milwaukee Street including the Wright Road and Wuthering Hills intersections, then what good will a bike trail underpass do to aleviate those types of accidents in those areas?

JCK, none of those 11 accidents happened at the site of the proposed tunnel. Not one person has been hurt crossing at the bike/walking path that I have read. In other cities, police give tickets to drivers when a pedestrian is in a crosswalk. Why could'nt the city enforce that in Janesville?

Avidreader well said!!! Maybe if we all take some time to slow down this city would be alot safer place to live!

I've said it before in another post, and I will say it again. If the dangers of this intersection are because of speeding and inattentive motorists, then building this tunnel,is just telling them that it is ok for them to break the law, and endanger people, the city of janesville will not punish you, they will dig into the pockets of it's citizens and you can just go on your merry way driving however you want. Just another case of catering to the offenders. Just think of how much money the city would make if they fined just half of the idiots who don't know how to read a speed limit sign.

lakenndey - my comments were definitely not intended to be personal attacks so please do not read them this way. You seem to be the main opponent to the tunnel on the boards with some common sense though so I have been responding to your posts. That being stated, you just do not seem to understand the need for the tunnel and only see it as a large expenditure the taxpayers cannot afford and you seem to be the one not understanding the other sides view. As has been discussed by myself and others, the cost of this project, spread over the entire taxbase is minimal. I have read the other options. A bridge would be over twice as much, going to the corner of Wright and Milwaukee poses many hazards (not to mention there would be many who would just continue to cross where the current crossing is), and speed bumps and stop lights do not necessarily stop the traffic. The tunnel will take people out of the path of traffic. You also continually bring up if a tunnel is built here, all the other intersections will need one. This has not been proposed at all. Additionally, the Wright Rd location up from Ruger is completly different as there are only two lanes of traffic. To your comment regarding there are those being asked to pay for the tunnel who will never use it, I encourage them to get out there and use it, if possible. It is really a great part of this city. There are many places where my tax dollars go which I choose not to, or cannot, use (ex. golf courses, senior center). I however understand these are important parts of the city and do not have any issues with my tax dollars supporting them. In reading your posts, you do not seem to understand we cannot pick to have our individual tax dollars only support what we use.

ladykennedy, I'm confused by your statement that there isn't a shred of evidence to support the position that there could be an accident there when the police have reported 11 in the past 8 years with 5 injuries and a fatality and those facts make it one of most dangerous intersections in the city. Perhaps a tunnel isn't the best answer but it's pretty clear that it's dangerous out there and unless you think the city should ignore one of the most dangerous intersections in the city it's obvious something needs to be done.

Neither I nor my children have ever attended a Janesville school. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support them. There are streets in the city on which I have never driven. Explain to me why I should pay taxes to build or repair them. I've never taken the bus. Explain why I should pay taxes so others can ride them. Need I go on.

No offense intended but you logic is illogical.

Then why should we ever raise taxes for anything? Your 93 year old grandmother isn't going to benefit from increased taxes for schools? So why should we make her pay for that? Previous discussions on this topic have shown that the impact on our taxes is going to be minimal. Furthermore, your arguement that we shouldn't put a tunnel there because there has never been an accident is worn out, as is saying that if we're going to put one there we need to put one at every crossing. Using this logic, why would we put stoplights or stop signs at any intersection until there is tangible proof that there is a safety issue? Your logic here is weak.

how much will spending 450k or whatever it is affect an individuals taxes?? thousands a year?? hundreds a year?? i really dont know, so please if you have that info, let me know how much an individuals taxes are going to go up. you want 'evidence' that something 'could' happen?? is that possible?? the evidence is in the fact that you use the word 'could'. lets see, 8000 cars a day, if only ONE person crosses the trail a day, yer aware it COULD happen. is that good enough for evidence, or do you want us to wait until a single parent tries crossing with a 6 an an 8 yr old and the texter doesnt see it. is that really the evidence you want?? a dead child?? or would just a slightly injured one suffice as evidence??

kid,
Would you mind meeting with my 93 year old grandmother, who is on a fixed income and explaining to her (and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of others living on a fixed income) that we need to raise their taxes to pay for a tunnel that they will never use, because you and others feel (without one shred of evidence) that there could be an accident here someday?

Let her know that when she's paying for this increase on her taxes instead of for her prescriptions, that "it's just money, people, you can make more."

Your logic regarding the government and spending money may have worked during the New Deal Era, but we aren't there now. Let's see some evidence as to how this tunnel will improve our economic crisis, please.

in an 'economic crisis' i think we should encourage people/govts to SPEND money. if everyone stops spending money during this 'crisis', you will surely find out that this in fact is not a crisis.

for those of you who think an underpass will generate graffiti and a place for thugs an what not. i wont point blank say you are wrong, cuz i cant prove something that doesnt exist, but there is an underpass like a mile away under hwy 14, and i dont think those issues have come up with that one. the assault last year had nothing to do with the tunnel, so do we yank up the entire trail to prevent that stuff?? plus if its ok to not build to prevent crime, wouldnt it naturally be ok to build the tunnel to prevent injury?? just build it people, you can make more money.

thetruth:
That's fine that you and the other bike trail users got what they want. But, please don't assume a "us against them" mentality, as I am a bike trail user, and have no desire for a tunnel.

I still maintain that if the argument for building this tunnel is to keep pedestrians safe from inattentive drivers, then this "solution" is comparable to putting a band-aid on a bullet hole, as there are inattentive drivers all over this city. The tunnel sends a message that not only does the city think that this particular area is somehow deserving of a tunnel when other areas under similar circumstances (the crossing on Wright Road just up the hill from Ruger, for example) are not, but it tells the drivers that we'll accomodate them for breaking the law. Your arguments have evolved into personal ones, Truth, and I don't think you're even considering the oppositions arguments to the tunnel, which is insulting--considering we'll be the ones paying for it.

Also, Truth, keep in mind that this tunnel is serving a very small portion of the community in a time of economic crisis. I think it's self-serving to say the least that the entire tax base should pay the bill so that you can have a tunnel to ride under instead of going up to the intersection at the corner of Wright Road and E. Milwaukee Streets where there already are stop lights.

And Truth, try and remember that all of the funding hasn't been approved, yet.

OUr family would appreciate the tunnel as we do the one under Hwy 14. I have two small children that take some time to cross the street. We begin crossing when no one is around and we still have speeding cars coming at us by the time we reach the other side. Also you have some motorists who are considerate and stop to the flashing yield lights but then someone in the next lane blows right through. That makes it hazardous to the motorists too.

An underpass? That sounds like it is just asking for trouble with regards to safety of pedestrians. JMO.

I wonder why they don't do a study an d actually see how many pedestrians cross the street in question. They could also see how many of those people actually press the button to activate the light. I use that street daily and very rarely have people crossing the intersection nor do they use the light.

candyapplered: The article said "roughly 8,000 vehicles travel the stretch of road". I took that to mean Milwaukee Street "stretch" at the "intersection" with the bike trail.
It is confusing when the article says that Sheiffer also talked about the "intersection" and mentions MKE and Wright, but Sheiffer is not directly quoted. Is that what he said? Or, did the reporter get wrong?.
Now I'm confused.

I am curious of those 10 people at the meeting even use the path? I do and the other night with the yellow lights flashing I started across the street and I had to stop for some bozo in a pick-up truck who would have gone right thru if I hadn't been in front of him. Why not keep the lights flashing yellow all the time and turn red when the button is pressed similiar to the lights at a fire station?

A bridge (the overpass option discussed in the article) is MORE EXPENSIVE STILL.
.
And roundabouts are safer than stoplights:
"National studies have shown roundabouts reduce fatal crashes by 90%, injury crashes by 76% and crashes involving pedestrians by 30% to 40%." In the words of a WisDOT engineer, "You can’t go through a roundabout at high speed and your T-bone crashes are virtually eliminated." The recent fatal crash at this intersection was a T-bone.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx...

Gazette,
What were the alternative bike path crossings presented by Mr. Sheiffer, and what were their costs and safety concerns?

A bridge would cost more. That's clearly stated in the article.

And I don't think that a "handful" of people who had nothing better to do than go to a meeting to oppose this tunnel is the voice of the entire community. The tunnel has been approved. Deal with it.

Technically, the city still has to approve a final $275K in funding for the project, so it's not a done deal yet.

candyapplered,
One alternative the city planner, and a consultant, recommended was to reduce Milwaukee Street east of Wright road down to 3 lanes, with the middle lane a turn lane. 8,000 vehicles is not enough to justify a 4 lane road. There would not be traffic flow chaos, just slower speeds.

lakennedy – we have heard your complaints enough on this topic. Find something else to complain about. You say the only residents who spoke against the tunnel last night were against it. How many were there? I’ll tell you. There were less than 10. 10 residents out of a city of over 60,000 came to the meeting to speak against the tunnel. Not exactly a strong argument to have this vote overturned. Also, why would residents who were in favor of the tunnel need to come to the meeting? It has already passed and we are happy. For what it is worth, take a look at the WCLO poll Councilmember Brunner spoke about last night. An overwhelming majority want the tunnel. I do have to thank you for finally realizing the cost for us taxpayers is not $670,000 but rather only $435,000. However, you seem like a smart enough woman, think about how ridiculous a referendum would be for this amount. If we had a referendum for every expenditure at this cost, there would be lots of delays and many projects which need to go through would not get passed because everyone in the city does not use everything.

I hope you folks talking about a bridge are trying to be funny. If not, read the article.

Why not a bridge?

Mark707: Many roudabouts are 2 lanes, one for those proceeding straight or right turn (outter circle) and one for those proceeding to make a left turn (inner circle). There are many roundabouts in communities surrounding Madison which have much higher traffic flow than on East Milwaukee.
.
tnimmo89 - I've never once had a problem with any "gangs" or "creeps" hiding under the Hwy 14 tunnel, why would this be any different?

would a pedestrian bridge, like the ones they have in other citys, be more than the tunnel?

I am not sure if I agree with this tunnel thing or not, nor do I have a better suggestion at this point but the whole picture needs to be looked at.

Mark707; the article says 8000 (does this number reflect only traffic on Milwaukee crossing Wright or crossing the intersection from any direction?) vehicles at the intersection of Milwaukee and Wright Road. The bike path crosses Milwaukee about a 2 - 3 block distance east of that intersection. To put a pedestrian controlled light at that crossing, assuming it is used as much as some of you are saying, will have traffic stopping and starting all day long. If the number of estimated vehicles is even partially accurate, that could mean traffic flow chaos.

I, also, am having a hard time wrapping my mind around a roundabout at the Wuthering Hills intersection.

Regardless of weather people use the trail or not, they still have a right to voice their opinions because it is all of their taxes that will be going up to pay for it, happycamper. I do live right off of the trail, and use it regularly. I haven't been hit by a car. Is it possible that I or someone else could be? Yes. But due to the weak evidence supporting this tunnel, I argue that the same danger lurks throughout the entire city of Janesville. This danger is posed by inattentive drivers, and it would be beneficial to the city at large--not just beneficial to the small segment of the population that uses the bike trail, or the even smaller segment of that population that uses this particular crossing--if there was a joint effort between the city council and the JPD to actively start targeting the drivers that pose a threat to every citizen of Janesville.

Furthermore, last night at the council meeting the only people who spoke in regards to the tunnel, spoke against it. I think that if the four council members who support this tunnel are serious about their commitment to represent the best interest/wishes of the ENTIRE CITY, then it would be in their (and our) best interest to see the issue be put to a referendum. I understand that these are not cheap, but neither is $435,000.00 for a bike tunnel.

As a user, and observer, of the cross walk their are many near hits, the reason there are not more is the people crossing, even with the light, realize how dangerous it is and proceed with caution. Again, I encourage you all to use the trail, buy many of the comments, it is clear you do not. The trail has many tunnels now and no problems. All I can say is use it, the worst that can happen is you get exercise.

A gem of an example to Janesville ass-backward phillosopy. This tunnel would only promote more creepers at night than we already have, our little 8th graders and their gangs will have a field day with such a tunnel, and simply no good would come from it. Driver awareness is the key. Pedestrians do not cross when cars are coming, drivers, break when there is a PERSON in front of you. Put some lights over the cross walk for increased visability at night, and make sure the area is cleared of trees/bushes that would impair driver visability of persons waiting to cross... A tunnel is just not necissary.

Who is crying? The topic is "Residents oppose planned bike tunnel". We are stating our opinions. Do we have a different opinion than you opinionsforfree? OK, welcome to our Democracy.

Stop crying you guys

$700k times 1, no what about wright rd, ruger, racine, beloit ave, jackson. So that would now be $700k X 6, or $4.2 million. Remember folks one accident is one to many so we need all of these tunnels...