Here's a related article: http://www.planetizen.com/node/57861
On Aug 9, 2012 4:07 PM, "Robbie Webber" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Looks like the Wisconsin DOT is finally going to move ahead with plans to
> change Stoughton Rd.  (Can't say whether it will be an "improvement".) As
> noted in the article, they've been talking about it since 2003. I know I
> sat through quite a few presentations and offered my opinion a number of
> times.
>
> Now they are officially holding public hearings. It is encouraging to see
> that the article, and presumably the DOT press release features concerns
> about pedestrians and bicyclists. This road is a huge barrier to people
> crossing by any means, but it's almost impossible, and very scary, if you
> try it without a car.
>
>
> http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/improvements-to-stoughton-road-up-for-discussion/article_0f379e54-e224-11e1-a885-0019bb2963f4.html
>
> Although the article mentions this also being US Hwy 51, really there is
> no reason it has to operate as a freeway, or even at 45 MPH, as it does in
> most locations. The Interstate is less than 1.5 miles away, and any
> intercity through traffic can use that corridor quite easily.
>
> When I heard past presentations, one safety concern always seemed to be
> that the speed limit changed, and there were lots of rear-end crashes. My
> suggestion was always, and still is, to make it an urban boulevard with a
> 35 MPH speed limit. Instead of speeding up the slow parts, slow down the
> fast parts. That would make it less frightening for people trying to cross
> and would make it less of an ugly barrier for the neighborhoods on both
> sides. It would probably also result in better, less car-oriented land use
> along the corridor as well.
>
> By the way, lest anyone think that wanting less car-oriented land use is
> simply being a car-hater, there is a very good, completely
> taxpayer-oriented, economically mercenary reason for wanting less
> car-oriented land use: Parking lots don't generate much property tax. If
> there were more or larger buildings, and less parking and roads in that
> corridor, the entire area would generate more property taxes.
>
>
> Robbie Webber
> Transportation Policy Analyst
> State Smart Transportation Initiative
> www.ssti.us
> 608-263-9984 (o)
> [email protected]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org

Reply via email to