This is a rather long article from today's Cap Times. Please note the meeting times coming up in 2 weeks. We should all try to attend one - this is a huge issue for your bicycling in the county.
Please also note these tidbits on info: 1) The low-speed option would also mean ANOTHER corridor would be mapped for a future freeway. Wasn't this whole committee about mapping a corridor? 2) There will be pressure for the freeway because it is the only one that will get state and federal money. (Something that might be changed by today's elections....) Since the folks using this road don't want to pay for it all themselves - they'd rather spread the pain - they can only feed at the gas tax trough if it's a big honking expressway. (And if anyone brings up bicyclists wanting trails to be funded, I will challenge them to see which transportation facility is more of a drain on the taxpayers!) And now... the article: ******************************************** Public input sought on road for north side By Bill Novak November 5, 2002 What type of road will best serve thousands of motorists trying to get into Madison from the Dane County area north of Lake Mendota? The public's input on the proposed North Mendota Parkway will be a key step in what recommendation is made to the Dane County Board to meet the transportation needs of the region in conjunction with land use management and resource preservation. A wide range of alternatives have been on the table for improving the region's road system, with the alternatives ranging from doing nothing to building a four-lane limited access freeway. Public hearings on the three main alternatives selected by the North Mendota Parkway advisory committee will be held Nov. 18 at Middleton City Hall, Nov. 19 at the Waunakee Middle School cafeteria, and Nov. 20 at the Warner Park Community Recreation Center. [Advertisement] The committee chose three alternatives in October from a list of six alternatives (see accompanying map) developed this past summer. The recommendations under consideration: * A low-speed local parkway with a 35 mph speed limit, using County M in Middleton north and east to Wisconsin 113, then north to Wisconsin 19 near Waunakee before heading east to Interstate 90-94. * A moderate-speed inter-community parkway with a 45 mph speed limit that would expand the route from the low-speed scenario to four lanes. * A high-speed freeway with a 60 mph speed limit going from U.S. 12 in the town of Springfield east along County K, meeting up with County M in Westport, then using the same corridor as the first two alternatives to the interstate. Advisory committee members are contemplating what alternative would best serve the region, mainly because there are a number of "publics" to consider when planning out the future of the roads in the region. Should the parkway be a local road connecting neighborhoods, a regional road connecting the region's towns or a major east-west corridor connecting the new four-lane U.S. 12 to the six-lane interstate? County Board and advisory committee member Eileen Bruskewitz of Waunakee prefers the freeway as the best alternative, but added a cautionary note. "My personal sense is the 35 mph parkway will be built no matter what," she said. "It's close to Middleton, so it might be a given that it will be built." At the same time, Bruskewitz feels the freeway needs to be mapped out. If and when a freeway is ever built, the corridor would already be in place, not encumbered by existing developments or wetlands. "Under any scenario, we'll need these transportation facilities," she said. "It's important for the committee to state we do need transportation facilities out here." The moderate-speed alternative might be a compromise, but it wouldn't solve the traffic problems regional motorists face every day coming into Madison from County K and County Q. Dane County Planning and Development Director Jeanie Sieling said the department can't recommend what alternative is best. She did say, however, that one of the major points made early on by the committee was they want to keep local traffic flowing without bringing traffic from other areas into the region. To do so, the committee would most likely recommend the low-speed/high-speed combo, with Middleton served by the low-speed parkway and the regional motorists coming in to Madison using the high-speed freeway. "I don't think there's a magic bullet for all of this," Sieling said. Cost estimates for the three alternatives show the low-speed parkway would cost $28 million, the moderate-speed parkway $28 million and the high-speed freeway $46 million. These cost estimates do not include the cost of acquiring the rights of way necessary for the roads. Tom Lynch, transportation engineer at Strand Associates Inc., said the committee had a unique mission in developing the three scenarios that the public will look at later this month. "This study is different because land use management and resource preservation are an essential part of the transportation plan," he said. Lynch is a consultant to the committee on developing the parkway plan. While he wouldn't say what his personal recommendation might be, he put the three alternatives in perspective. "With a low-speed parkway, you have more access and a higher demand for access points," Lynch said. "You would most likely have traffic signals on that type of roadway, and it would be more neighborhood-oriented. "But you would still need to map out a higher-speed parkway corridor, to preserve the best route for later. Oftentimes, transportation requirements are reactive, and in 20 years, the low-speed parkway is congested. You look for relief, so the new freeway has to be built farther out than you want to build it because the corridor wasn't preserved." The moderate-speed parkway would serve the region for many years, Lynch said, but its primary purpose would be to provide more mobility for the entire region rather than serve as a local road or a main freeway. And since the moderate-speed parkway would give greater mobility to motorists right away, the high-speed freeway wouldn't be mapped, which could be a drawback to improving the transportation system in the region a generation from now. No matter what is recommended or ultimately built, the state Department of Transportation wouldn't consider the project a high priority. "The state highway plan has two major types of roadways, backbone highways and connecting highways," Lynch said. "Those are the two main roads the DOT puts a priority on." Backbone highways are the main corridors across Wisconsin, such as the interstate system, U.S. 41 and U.S. 151. Connecting highways are major feeder freeways into the backbone, such as Madison's Beltline. Other roads and projects, including the North Mendota Parkway, don't fall into either the backbone or connecting highway category. "Available funding for the North Mendota Parkway is quite limited," Lynch said, "and the cost for the ultimate construction of it could be quite great." Lynch said if a low-speed parkway was the final design, it would have to be funded primarily in local funds from the participating municipalities. The moderate-speed parkway would be funded using a combination of local and county money, and the high-speed freeway would get state and federal money. After the public hearings Nov. 18-20, the advisory committee will make its final report to the County Board in December or January. If the County Board accepts the advisory committee's recommendation, the plans will be sent to the DOT and the affected municipalities so the official mapping of the corridor can be done. _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
