Re: US 12 - Fort Atkinson, WI EIS hearing


David Jensen wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2005 08:13:23 -0800, in misc.transport.road
> "Jon Enslin" <jenslin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> <1133280803.177639.92430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >Michael G. Koerner wrote:
> >> http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/2005/sw-us12deisph.htm
> >>
> >> Anyone going to this? I can't get off work, otherwise I would.
> >
> >
> >I cannot. Here is the Executive Summary of the DEIS.
> >
> >http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/us12fort/docs/deis-execsumm.pdf
> >
> >Basically, the in-city options are not going to alliviate the traffic
> >problem nor is Option 3. Options 7 or 7a are the best for traffic
> >alliviation but are the most expensive.
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. No point.
> 2. (all) agreed, accomplishes nothing in the long run.
> 3. A permanent detour? Why bother.
> 3a Will they be widening 39/90 soon?
> 4. What a good idea -- if they had bothered to do a north/east bypass in
> Whitewater.
> 5. Can this really be cheaper than 7/7a?
> 6. huh? Does this do anything?
> 7. Second best.
> 7a Best, but what's with DOT's obsession with using two miles of current
> ROW. If they had planned decently, they could have run in a more or less
> straight line from the south end of the 26 bypass to the curve in the
> Whitewater bypass. These are almost as bad as the Verona bypass (which
> at least has the excuse that it carries traffic bound for Green County.

Well, 3a, 4, 5, and 6 have already been eliminated from consideration.
I agree that 7a is the best choice in the long run. I think they kept
3 around just to placate the Town of Koshkonong, but if you are going
to do 3, you might as well do 3a. 3 will do nothing to solve regional
issues though.


> >One issue that bugs me is the issue regarding WI-89. In my opinion,
> >this is easy to deal with in one of two ways. One option in the case
> >of options 7s would be to re-route WI-89 along the US-12 bypass, the
> >WI-26 bypass and US-12 to County Highway G.
> >
> >The other option is simply to decommision the highway between US-18
> >west of Jefferson and the US-12 bypass at Whitewater. You could
> >renumber the southern portion WI-189 or send WI-140 east along US-14 to
> >WI-89 or something like that.
>
> I guess so.
>
> Did you notice that US-59 has found its way into Wisconsin on the map
> (ES-9 and ES-11)?

Heh... I did not.

Jon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: UW-12 Whitewater (WI) Bypass Open!
    ... The bypass will not have interchanges. ... County P and Walworth Avenue in the city of Whitewater. ... I'm in the process of updating the Wisconsin Highways website right ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: UW-12 Whitewater (WI) Bypass Open!
    ... > Three years, $115.5 million later, Whitewater bypass to open ... > bypass around the city of Whitewater. ... > highway will be limited to intersections, ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: UW-12 Whitewater (WI) Bypass Open!
    ... >> Three years, $115.5 million later, Whitewater bypass to open ... >> bypass around the city of Whitewater. ... >> highway will be limited to intersections, ... >> Chris Bessert ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: US 12 - Fort Atkinson, WI EIS hearing
    ... straight line from the south end of the 26 bypass to the curve in the ... Whitewater bypass. ... >WI-26 bypass and US-12 to County Highway G. ... >west of Jefferson and the US-12 bypass at Whitewater. ...
    (misc.transport.road)