Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pewaukee Road Trail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pewaukee committee narrows Pewaukee Road trail study to two alternatives for detailed engineering
Summary
After reviewing four alignment options and a cost‑and‑safety matrix, the Public Works Committee voted to ask consultants to advance two alternatives (color‑coded in the study as “blue” and “yellow”) for preliminary engineering and refined cost estimates.
The Pewaukee Public Works Committee voted to advance two alternatives from a four‑option study to the preliminary engineering phase, aiming to refine costs and design details for a proposed extension of the Milwaukee Road trail to Tower Place.
Speaker 3, who presented the study, said consultants identified four high‑level routes and two sub‑variants. "Alternative 1 is a route that takes us basically directly along Pewaukee Road," Speaker 3 said, noting that alternative's lower construction estimate but higher safety concerns owing to proximity to high‑speed traffic. Speaker 3 gave the cost estimates presented in the draft: about $733,900 for the straight Pewaukee Road alternative, roughly $1,164,000 for Alternative 2a and $1,187,500 for Alternative 2b.
Committee members debated tradeoffs including safety, wayfinding, easement needs and potential impacts on underutilized parcels behind ProHealth. "Alternate 1 is the least cost, but it's got the lowest safety rating," Speaker 2 said when describing the consultant's matrix, adding that the plan also considers user comfort, tree impacts and connectivity to nearby businesses.
Several members favored routes that moved the path away from the busy roadway where feasible. After discussion about hybrid combinations of the proposed alignments, the committee asked staff to have the consultant produce more detailed preliminary designs and costs for two options; members repeatedly referred to the favored alternatives by color coding in the study. Speaker 4 made the motion to narrow the study to two alternatives; the motion carried on a voice vote.
Next steps are for staff and the consultant to prepare preliminary engineering for the two selected alternatives, tightening estimates for grading, utility impacts and easement needs, and to return with more detailed plans the committee can review before any construction funding decisions.
