Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb: One more step to sane streets: 76th Street reconstruction includes a sidewalk

ABOVE: The untenable parking situation that occurs at the Franklin Little League Complex every game day as a result of lack of safe pedestrian and bike alternatives.

Last week the Franklin Common Council voted to ensure that a sidewalk will be part of the configuration of 76th Street when it is rebuilt from W. Terrace Drive to W. Puetz Road. (The four configuration choices are listed after the jump.)

The sole "no" vote was by Alderman Steve Olson, who, while interested in seeing a sidewalk added to the stretch of road (which includes the city's Little League complex and would provide a walking/biking route to the Rawson-76th Street commercial area), evidently saw nothing in any of four alternatives presented by the county that he would support. He was also, apparently, more interested in creating in his constituents the notion that he voted against spending city money (see below).

Lest he try to make hay of the notion that he "voted against city spending," you will recall that Olson is one of the major proponents for Franklin's $500,000 expenditure on the Drexel Interchange in Oak Creek. I await his economic mitigation plan for the damage that particular move will cause; it's an episode that will be looked at in hindsight as one of the steps to the path of Franklin's Edge City status if steps aren't taken.

Also, Olson did not mention in his letter to constituents addressing the vote on 76th Street the fact that Jack Takerian, interim director of the Milwaukee County Department of Transportation and Public Works, explained to the council that new federal policy and related grant funding all but ensure that part or all of Franklin's $860,000 portion (Olson rounded up to $900,000 for the "benefit" of his constituents) will be eliminated. The street is within 2 miles of the middle school, for instance, so it is eligible for Safe Routes to School funding. Much, much smaller communities than Franklin -- who have committed to the grant application process -- have spent a few thousand dollars only to see a half million come back in funding for sidewalks and walking amenities.

During the discussion, Alderman Steve Taylor made a good point: There are numerous subdivisions along 76th that are effectively cut off from one another by the dangerous street. A sidewalk would be an enormous amenity, and also allow access to the businesses on Rawson.

Mayor Tom Taylor had this to say before the vote:

While I originally vetoed this proposal and only wanted to go with alternative A; if alternative B was selected tonight, I would not move to veto it.
...
I think that Mr. Michlig, Mr. Fowler [Franklin Trail Committee Chair], Alderman Sohns [former Trail Committee Member], Alderman Kristen Wilhelm, and many others in the community have totally convinced me that we need to be pedestrian friendly; we need to have a connected city.

Still think things can't change if you agitate a bit?

Add this to the 51st Street reconstruction in front of the high school, which includes pedestrian facilities at last (Olson voted against that, too), and it becomes just a bit easier to foresee a community build to serve people as well as vehicles.

76th Street Reconstruction Alternatives

Alternative A

This alternative is what the County staff considers as the minimum design and the County would

pay the total cost of this alternative. This alternative would have left turn lanes at most of the

intersections and the lanes would be painted on the road surface. Approximately half of the project
would be urban design with curb and gutter and half would be lUral design with ditches. With this
alternative, the project could be constructed in 2012. Total project cost $7,922,500, County costs
only.

Alternative B

This alternative is the same roadway design as Alternative A, except that curb and gutter would be installed along the full length of the east side and a five foot sidewalk would be installed the full length of the east side. The cost for this alternative is $860,000. The cost for this alternative includes more than the cost of the sidewalk (estimated at $200,000 to $250,000) and includes the additional curb and gutter on the east side, additional storm sewers, additional right-of-way and additional cost for storm water management. Altemative B would delay the project by one year to 2013. Total project cost $8,782,500.

Alternative C

This alternative includes an 18 foot median and an urban section (curb and gutter) on both sides of the roadway, but does not include sidewalk. Rather than painting the left tum lanes, the left turn lanes would be cut into the medians. Additional right-of-way would be necessary and retaining wall would be required at two locations to eliminate relocation of two homes. Traffic would be moved closer to the existing homes. Under the County's cost share policy, this alternative would cost the City $5,926,000, for a total project cost of $13,848,500.

Alternative D

This alternative is similar to Alternative C, except sidewalk is included along the east side which would require even more additional right-of-way. Under the County's cost share policy, this alternative would cost the City $6,213,500; for a project cost of $14,136,000.