Proposed Janesville highway project draws concerns
IF YOU GO
What: A state Department of Transportation meeting with landowners affected by a proposed connection of the Highway 11 bypass to Highway 14 on Janesville’s west side.
When: 6 p.m. Thursday
Where: Janesville Town Hall, 1628 N. Little Court, which is just off County A west of Janesville.
Details: The meeting is open to the public.
JANESVILLE — Portions of a state proposal to connect the Highway 11 bypass to Highway 14 on Janesville’s west side have rankled some landowners, particularly those who could be affected by a four-mile segment of new highway.
State officials will be in Rock County on Thursday to meet with landowners affected by the proposed connection.
Several landowners question the need for the project and are concerned that they will lose homes and buildings and be forced to sell land at what one said is a “ridiculous” price.
Mark Westerveld, a project manager for the state Department of Transportation, said 44 property owners have been invited to the meeting at the Janesville Town Hall.
For years, the department has been studying the Highway 11/14 corridor in Rock and Walworth counties. Generally, the studies have broken into eastern and western sections, with Interstate 90/39 as the dividing line.
Westerveld said traffic counts support a Highway 14 connection to the Highway 11 bypass, which was completed in 2002 at a cost of about $22 million.
As the state moves forward with plans to widen the Interstate to six lanes between Beloit and Madison, Westerveld said the connection between the Highway 11 bypass and Highway 14 becomes timelier. It would handle traffic detoured off the Interstate during construction.
“We were going to do the western segment at some point, and with the plans for the Interstate, we’ve put the eastern section on hold and have moved the western section up somewhat,” he said.
The state has five alternatives for the western project:
-- Do nothing, other than routine maintenance on existing highways.
-- Improvements that could include intersection, signal or other access modifications.
-- Widen Highway 14 from two lanes to four west of Highway 51. Highway 14 east of Highway 51 and through Janesville would be expanded from four lanes to six. This alternative is referred to in DOT documents as W3.
-- Relocate part of Highway 14 at a point between Britt and Burdick roads, angling it southeast along property lines to join Highway 11. This alternative is referred to as W4.
-- Relocate part of Highway 14 at a point east of Burdick Road, running it straight south to Highway 11. This alternative is referred to as W5.
The latter two alternatives would be built as two-lane highways. They would, however, include enough right-of-way so the road could be expanded to four lanes to meet 2040 traffic count projections.
The latter two are generating the most interest.
“The people affected are really concerned, as you would expect,” said Ed Marshall, Janesville town chairman. “Others who aren’t affected who know about it have some empathy, and some others know nothing about it.”
Marshall has heard discussion about the need for the project and whether traffic counts warrant the expansion or if it’s just a short-term, expensive solution to alleviate construction delays on the Interstate.
Marshall said the town posted maps during Tuesday’s election, and they seemed to generate interest.
Property owner Kim Wincapaw has an interest, as the W5 option would take 44 acres of her land and force several buildings to be moved.
Wincapaw’s property is at the north end of the proposed bypass extension at Highway 14. An interchange would be built on her property.
“My main concern is that they’re talking about some ridiculous sum of money, $4,000 to $6,000 per acre, is what I’ve heard,” she said. “There’s no way you can buy farmland like this for that, especially land on a major highway this close to town.”
Wincapaw said she derives income from the property, primarily from the farmland she rents and the businesses that lease buildings from her.
“I survive on that income,” she said. “It’s my retirement and my kids’ inheritance.”
Wincapaw is concerned about the amount of capital gains tax she would pay if she’s forced to sell her land to the state.
“This isn’t the most magnificent land, but it’s flat, and it’s a farmer’s dream,” she said. “I don’t want the money. It’s never been my intention to sell the land.”
Westerveld said the 44 people invited to Thursday’s meeting have property that touches one or both of the two bypass extension alternatives.
He said the state has not made a decision on which of the five alternatives it will pursue. That, he said, could come later this summer or early fall.
Construction costs are preliminary and vary depending on the alternative, he said. At this point they range from zero for doing nothing to $180 million for the four-lane version of either W4 or W5.
Initially, he said, W4 or W5 would be built as a two-lane highway at a cost of about $50 million.
Expanding Highway 14 would cost about $50 million, he said.
Rep. Evan Wynn, R-Whitewater, represents the town of Janesville. He’s primarily concerned that W4 or W5 would be an expensive, short-term option to alleviate Interstate construction congestion.
“After that’s done, then what?” he said. “What happens after three years of Interstate construction is done and the traffic counts on the new road go way down?
“I’m concerned about the cost to taxpayers, as well as the idea that we would rip up several hundred acres of farmland and people could lose theirs houses and buildings.”
Wynn, who will attend Thursday’s meeting, said if the state has money to spend, he’d prefer it be spent to repair existing roads.
Correspondence from the state-hired infrastructure consultant on the project indicates that an environmental impact statement will be done later this year. The project then would move into the design phase, with anticipated construction in the spring of 2015.
Based on that schedule, the state would start buying right-of-way for its selected route next year.
Westerveld said Thursday’s meeting will be an informal gathering requested by a property owner. It will serve as an update on the alternatives and the state’s schedule, he said.
Apr 11, 2012 at 10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.facebook.com/JVLWINOBYPASS
Apr 10, 2012 at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
US-14, if you're not already aware, is a four-lane limited access (i.e. interstate-style) highway from Madison as far as Oregon. I drive it frequently enough that it clearly has the traffic to support it that far, but immediately afterward the "bedroom community" commuters drop out of the picture and the intercity traffic just isn't enough yet to warrant a fully reconstructed highway. The state has intent, but no current plans, to upgrade further south as far as Brooklyn (WI-92).
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/d1/u...
.
What might happen next is upgrading the Evansville-Janesville segment with turn lanes and other safety improvements, but the segment east of Janesville has more traffic and didn't get a lot of that when they recently rebuilt it.
.
All that said, however, IF the WI-11 bypass is completed to connect to US-14, THEN the state would almost certainly begin thinking more seriously about what needs to be done between there and Oregon, dependent on how much traffic volume grows.
Apr 10, 2012 at 1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
I live off of Hwy 14 and it takes a long time to get out of my area with it being a two lane hwy and, in my opinion, making it a four lane hwy will increase speeds (because EVERYONE is in an awful hurry). I believe we'll see more accidents. My daughter is already being picked up at 6:50 a.m. by the school bus to make it to school by 8:05 a.m. I do not support any of these proposals. Perhaps folks should slow down and stop being in such a hurry. Make the necessary improvements to the roads and let it rest.
Apr 10, 2012 at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why not pave the entire county and be done with it?
Apr 10, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think they just need a new place to store those orange barrels.
Apr 10, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kim Wincapaw should get a lawyer. I wouldn't take less than 5 million for 44 acres.
Apr 9, 2012 at 11:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with JR Ewing that 14 needs to go to four lane. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. There were talks of it years ago and I think the big hold up has always been all of the farms located directly on the highway, I don't know how they are going to work around that, and get away with bypassing Evansville. But making it four lane from the west of 51 to Madison is eventually going to happen, and probably help Evansville economy eventually I would imagine. But the bypass from 11 to 14 I don't know about the traffic warranting it at this point especially.
Apr 9, 2012 at 9:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
The data used for the study is based on 2003 levels, and projections to the year 2035 based on those same 2003 levels. How much has changed in Janesville in the past (almost) 10 years ?
Apr 9, 2012 at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Regardless of what happens with the WI-11/US-14 connection, 4-laning US-14 west of US-51 is warranted given the level of traffic it gets (particularly during rush hour). Anyone attempting to head eastbound on US-14 from County F or River Rd has to wait out a long line of cars, and they frequently are the site of nasty wrecks. Ditto for County E trying to head westbound on US-14.
Traffic flow on US-14 west of US-51 outside of rush hour is OK now. However, it's the only worthwhile bypass of any upcoming construction on the interstate between Janesville and Madison; that construction will drive traffic to US-14. Even as it is now, it's faster for me to take US-14 in the evening than the Interstate, thanks to congestion on the Madison Beltline.
Apr 9, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Isn't it about 4 miles on hwy 14 to the highway 26 entrance to the interstate from where the proposed connection would be made? We are talking about couple extra stops along this proposed corridor in which it is about the same taking hwy 14 to hwy 26. Taking hwy 14 to hwy 26 would get a driver on the interstate faster too since it is less miles considering it is about 6 miles to the interstate from hwy the beginning of highway 11 bypass to the interstate, now add an additional 4 miles, compared to the already existing 4-5 miles. Now add in the extra officers it would take to patrol the addition and the lose of business because the city wants to drive traffic from every access point around the city. Seems like a waste and reverse effect of what Janesville needs.
Apr 9, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
tikiman1, If we assume 183 bushels per acre (Iowa Corn Assoc Avg), which I think is low at $6 a bushel, which is also low and do the math below.
W4 and W5 affect lets say 200 (230 & 225) acres total across all families.
200 * 183 * 6 is $219,600 in the first year.
10 years = $2,196,000
20 years = $4,392,000
40 years = $8,784,000
This does not take into account the time value of money.
Apr 9, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
This link is fixed.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/sw...
FYI The study done in 2003 briefly mentions the possibility of the bypass, and nothing more.
Check out my photobucket album for the 2003 study, the 2030 long range planning map of Janesville, as well as 4 maps, Option W1-3, Option W4, Option W5 and a map of the families affected.
Link
http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c308/e...
Apr 9, 2012 at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
What a foolish wasteful idea
Apr 9, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Useless without Maps.
Apr 9, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why would we even need to connect them? There is not that much traffic that I see. Its fine the way it is... even though we HAVE to blow money, they should maybe fix the roads we currently have with all the extra money. Quit building and start maintaining.
Apr 9, 2012 at 7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Here's a question. What's the projected income from an acre of farm land (whether rented out or farmed) over 2 lifetimes?
The question is valid because a lot of people pass the land to family members when they die.
Apr 9, 2012 at 6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
First of all the page has been removed, funny how when it becomes a story we can't see the maps. yes this has been talked about for decades, it was pretty much a given with the way they went around with the Highway 11 Bypass. Couple things to think about,
1. Is the highway 11 bypass really all that used? The farm I grew up on is still out that way and everytime I go out there I'm one of the only cars on that road, especially the stretch between Afton Rd and 11 by the end of Hayner Rd.
2. if price of corn is at 7.50 a bushel and an acre gets 125 bushel an acre, than that is a loss of close to $1000 per year. Price of corn is only going to go up and let's face it a farmer that owns that isn't selling right now because of the price of grain. So that doesn't even cost a decade of lost profits.
For once I agree with Evan Wynn. Hope he stands up and shuts it down.
Apr 9, 2012 at 2:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
I am really skeptical that the farmland on the west environs is as valuable as that on the south. Certainly, in any case, land values are partly determined by demand and by other potential uses. While I don't relish the loss of farmland, this bypass has been discussed for decades and was simply deferred for the future during the construction of the existing segment. Additionally, it is likely that the bypass itself will enhance the future value of the land, enabling owners to sell it for a higher price. There are, after all, subdivisions off of Austin Rd., one of which almost certainly abuts the W5 alignment.
.
As for roundabouts, they are standard options in all WisDOT planning now, and preferred for interchanges (such as the ones in Milton, which will make more sense once they are connected to the 26 ramps). I don't think the state will necessarily place any on the actual bypass thoroughfare, which will be similar to the existing construction to the south, with limited access.
Apr 8, 2012 at 10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Get used to it, DaBlogsta, roundabouts in new developments are becoming more and more common by the day, especially at interchanges.
Apr 8, 2012 at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
OMG. I hope we don't get any of those dumb roundabouts - they made Milton a laughing stock.
Apr 8, 2012 at 9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
When Janesville bought 80+ acres of farmland in the same vicinity, "Economic Development Director Vic Grassman said $18,000 per acre is not out of line with other recent sales of agriculture land developed for other uses. In fact, he said, the going rate near urban corridors appears to be about $25,000 per acre."
Apr 8, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
76+ Acres on 808 S. Tarrant Road sold for $7,560 an acre. (A new record from Badger State Auctions)
66+ Acres on Hwy 11 that would be affected by the new roads sold for between $7,000 and $8,000 an acre at the end of last year (2011)
The larger issue is that once this land is no longer farmland, the source of income whether it be from renting it to a farmer, or farming your own land, is no longer available to the affected family.
Apr 8, 2012 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
W4 will affect 16 properties, 230 acres of land, 20 farm structures and 2 homes.
W5 will affect 24 properties, 225 acres of land, 14 farm structures and 2 homes.
This information is taken from the WI DOT Documents dated 1-23-12. The entire report is 51 pages in length, but the link is broken, or the document removed from the WI DOT Webpage.
http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/...
Apr 8, 2012 at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
I wish they would start on it tomorrow.
Apr 8, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
$4,000 to $6,000 per acre? What a joke!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.