Whose Master Plan are we following anyway? Part 2

As I stated in What is our City thinking? Moving the fire stations is a BIG MISTAKE!, moving the fire stations is illogical. When things don’t add up, follow the money. Who does it make sense for?

This is the way I see it, in 3 parts. (Read Part 1 first)
Part 2:
The entire section of Calhoun Road between Bluemound and Greenfield is in great need of repaving. The north section, from Bluemound to the interstate, could use some lane improvements. The stretch south of the interstate is purely residential and posted at 25mph. It is not heavily used. Somehow the city’s engineering department is portraying this section as heavily used--needing widening and an increase in speed limit!

Residents from all over the city don’t want this change; they know this is overkill! The proposed size and scope seems foreign to their suburban senses. They know the increased roadway width and speed limit will also increase the traffic volume. This project is expensive. There is evidence that the traffic count projections are way too high.

The city’s own 2020 Master Plan shows the north section with only an additional lane, and the south stretch just minimally widened. This does not matter—the city projects an artificial need: we need to widen this road for safety reasons and then proceeds with its plans to widen it to the width of many city highways.

Because of the widened road, the interstate overpass bridge is no longer adequate. It now needs to be replaced, even though the DOT has no plans to replace it for years to come. Brookfield taxpayers must now shoulder the expense of the premature replacement rather than it being a routine state expense.

The replacement interstate bridge is deemed interchange neutral, even though its configuration is obviously preparing for an interchange. Most Brookfield residents, according to a city survey, did not list an interchange as a priority. The DOT does not believe this is a good location either, citing that an interchange at Calhoun and I-94 would be dangerous, because it is less than 1 mile from the Moorland interchange. These objections do not matter—the city proceeds with its plans to replace the bridge in a non- neutral interchange fashion.

To be continued...