Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council backs Alternative 2 for US‑53 downtown corridor after heavy public comment on parking and access
Summary
After hours of public comment from business owners, residents and accessibility advocates, the committee voted 5–1 to support Alternative 2 — which retains on‑street parking and widens sidewalks — while DOT continues the environmental review and design work for the US‑53 King Street–La Crosse Street corridor.
The Judiciary Administration Committee voted 5–1 on Nov. 4 to recommend Alternative 2 for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s US‑53 downtown corridor study (King Street to La Crosse Street). Alternative 2 narrows travel lanes while keeping on‑street parking and widening sidewalks; alternative 1 would have removed left‑side parking to add separated bike lanes.
WisDOT staff and consultants presented four concepts and said both alternatives could meet the study’s safety and operational objectives, but public surveys showed mixed preferences. Michael Richardson, the project manager, summarized technical outreach: technical advisory groups preferred parking‑removed separated lanes, while a targeted business survey produced 108 responses with 88% favoring Alternative 2.
Business owners strongly opposed removing curb parking. Kim Petaski, owner of Touch of Class (310–312 Main Street), said removal of on‑street parking would be “detrimental to all downtown businesses” and raised safety concerns about wider sidewalks shared by bicycles and pedestrians. Downtown Main Street Director Chad Honeycutt reported the high business response rate and urged more outreach and creative options such as seasonal flex lanes or a working group.
Supporters of protected bike lanes also spoke. Andrew Erickson, a La Crosse resident, backed Alternative 1 and cited the consultants’ parking analysis: “This project is a once in a generational opportunity… If we want La Crosse to stay competitive, livable, and attractive, we need to do the things that reflect that.”
Council debate weighed downtown access, disability access and long‑term multimodal goals. Council Member Podescu moved to support Alternative 2, citing feedback from a committee for people with disabilities that on‑street parking loss could deter some downtown visitors; the motion was seconded by Council President Dickinson and passed 5–1.
DOT staff told the committee the project schedule targets construction in 2030 and that selecting a preferred alternative now allows the study to complete the environmental document on schedule. The DOT will incorporate the committee’s preference as it proceeds to environmental review and final design and will continue community outreach.
