Kinnickinnic River Parkway - Jackson Park Drive

Good morning,

Alternative D is the way to do it. In fact, this alternative should have been completed a long time ago but instead, new and unnecessary plans for JPD are brought up for debate which frankly has done nothing but delay the road work that should have already been done.

A walking trail is unnecessary. JPD has long been a de facto trail with people walking through it daily. Vehicle traffic is not an issue and the area is relatively calm.

Alt D repave entire road and forget trail .

Please listen to those most impacted-the residents on JP Drive who do not want the dramatic change. Repaving the road is the will of the people.

After reading comments from others regarding the project, I agree with the majority who favor JPD should be reconstructed In-Kind – Alternative D. Perhaps 100% instead of 35% Curb & Gutter could be replaced if that is an easier and overall more cost-effective way to complete it long-term.

Like many others, I could produce a laundry list of reasons to keep JPD. I’m sure most of us have seen the “SAVE” posters that appear on lawns in neighborhoods. They seem to have a tendency to disappear (aka, be destroyed) on occasion - most currently, thrown into piles of leaves. It’s my contention that my Safety, Access, Value and Equity would be severely jeopardized if JPD is eliminated, - particularly S and A.

At the last Open House at the Boathouse, a proponent for eliminating JPD told me emergency vehicles would have access to my home via the 10-foot wide Trail. In the last few years, I’ve had to call 911 at least six times because of my wife’s health issues. There was never a problem for First Responders to access my home and convey her for emergency treatment. If JPD was converted to a Trail, in such an emergency, anyone on it would have to move to either side on the grass to allow vehicle access. If the vehicle came from the west, it probably would have to leave the area to the east or make a Y-turn. What condition would the adjacent grass be in after a Y-turn? How about in winter when there could be more than a foot of snow on either side? Do emergency vehicles have all-wheel-drive? What if two emergency vehicles respond or are needed for the call and one comes from the east and the other from the west? Do they both make Y-turns or does one have to back up to its access point to the Trail?

That’s just one of my many concerns. In my 38 years of residence on JPD, I have made many improvements to that side of my home. I’d hate to think that those could be in my backyard. I was also told that street elimination for Trail enhancements had never occurred in the County before, and that several could be in the pipeline. Let’s not make JPD the guinea pig. Also, what happened to Alderman Borkowski’s suggestion to have the City take over care of JPD?
Tom A

Option D is the best for everyone to enjoy and use JPD. We have lived on JPD since 1959 and are obviously very aware of activity of all kinds on the parkway road. We have over 40 years of walking our dogs directly on JPD road. Why - because it is safe, beautiful, well kept, friendly people also walking, jogging, cycling, driving, etc! As with absolutely anywhere you have to take personal responsibility when on any road to pay attention to your surroundings in many ways. The occasional speeder is so rare!!! It should be a mute point because it is that rare. Why do you think people use the road for so many different activities?!! We use our senses to proceed with caution. Not only for a motor vehicle but loose dogs, coyotes, etc. JPD is a gem to be left as is. Not to be made into something that is not accessible to everyone and is just another 8 ft path that you can enjoy elsewhere if thats what you want. To take away so much from all the owners is so selfish of MCP to even consider not keeping it as is. This road borders our homes - Our front yards and sidewalks just blending in with the grass on both sides of a path is unconscionable behavior for so many reasons from MCP. For all the reasons stated by our neighbors, it is beyond distasteful all the changes you think are a great idea.
Please do not disrupt JPD and take so much away from our neighborhood. Option D is the best option.
JoeJodiM

I have been a resident for approx 25 years, and yes other than the occasional pothole fix or water main repair(poor repairs to surface at that) - nothing - has been done to maintain this road. We walked kids, pets etc along the entire road from 58th and W Cleveland to S 47th street. Very seldom have we witnessed speeding along this road. We have observed many people driving along the JPD enjoying the green space areas adjacent to the parkway or enjoying the fall colors. Many of those same people that cant get out of their cars due to disabilities or handicap(s) would be unable to continue to do so. I would submit that the lack of a maintained road has limited access to those that must use a alternative mode of transportation. Over the years we have had the unfortunate experiences of thieves sitting in MMSD wooded areas observing homes and then breaking into homes, garages cars etc. This project would I feel would decrease the overall safety and physical security of the homes along the parkway, by creating an even larger non- patrolled area by which the criminal activity can go unchecked. The MCSO and law enforcement cant even keep the tents off their own county property downtown next to the museum an safety buildings and Park -n Ride lots in the county. The MSCO doesn't regularly even patrol this parkway. I have never seen an MSCO patrol car on this road. The 6th District hasn't been through here on a regular basis either - they have been short staffed for regular patrols for years - they are reactive not proactive in the area. I say repair and repave as it was originally designed. It outlasted the original 20yr 'life" by what - almost 20 years? We all know that the road will never be repaired at the "10 year" mark anyway and will probably last another 20+ years. By that time MMSD maybe will have addressed the erosion concerns that have plagued the waterways in this city for decades along the parkways. If you to turn the creek into an underground system all the way to the the Jackson Park area -turn the above ground area in the woods into a nature-path walkway-bike path for those that use it /or as others have suggested do like they did down by Pulaski park, prairie grasses ,boulders,etc. There are many other options. I recall seeing a numbers chart explaining that the cost to plow this trail would only cost like 800.00 per year. I would like to see where those numbers came from. In what world does that exist - this is Wisconsin, and also the grass cutting costs I feel were not accurate either(unless you cut it twice a year) Lets do the right thing for the actual people whom live here and pay some of the inflated property taxes because they are on this Parkway. Option D Reconstruct the original road and maintain as you should. We moved here for many reasons of which some are the lack of sidewalks and the JPD. fmmorav

I’ve lived on Jackson Park Dr for 30 years. Changing the width of the road and adding a bike path north of 51st will not create greater use by the public. I doubt if anyone at the County looked at current rate of usage. This road is used by cyclists, walkers and joggers. There is a real safety issue narrowing the road south of 51st. The current width is necessary for those of us who are doing tree trimming, driveway work or any home improvements that require contractors. There is simply not enough room to accommodate work vehicles, regular traffic and recreational users. For those to the north of 51st it will be nearly impossible to maintain the trees that currently line the road if the road is gone. Plus, it creates maintenance issues for the homeowners with regard to leaf disposal and boundary issues with users who don’t know where yards end and park begins.

The bike path is a project by people who don’t live in the neighborhood, use the parkway or understand the uniqueness of the parkway. They are truly misguided. Spend the money and fix the road. Option D is the right option.

Alternative "D".

- Lois K

Option "D". No bike path, no sidewalks.

- A long-time JPD resident.

Two public meetings have already been held. I attended both and feel correct in concluding that the vast majority of the residents living near JPD favor the option that should have been completed long ago: repave but leave as is JPD. My hope is that the two county supervisors who represent the districts impacted by this proposal vote for this option. I recall Supervisor Martinez at the initial meeting publicly announcing that his vote would reflect the wishes of his constituents, and as one living on JPD and as a constituent of Supervisor Martinez’s district, I trust that Supervisor Martinez will abide by his prior declaration.

I am also disappointed that once the public opportunity to post was opened after the October 2023 meeting, a number of individuals who do not live in the district decided to offer their opinions on a subject that has no impact on their daily lives. If I were of a more suspicious nature, I would question if these posters were encouraged to post by the same county employees who developed or support the plans to alter the present integrity of JPD. But, rather than accuse others of a bad faith manipulation of the purpose of public postings, I will only note that if the proposals impacting JPD were, instead, concerned with another area of the county, it would be the zenith of arrogance, vanity, and presumption for me to opine to others about a matter that is another neighborhood’s concern, not mine.

JPD, with its winding length and notable width, bordered by
mature woods to the north and brick and Lannon stone mid-century homes to the south, is a lovely albeit small jewel in an urban setting. It has a bit of a timeless quality about it and makes one briefly consider if they might have traveled back in time to life as it existed several decades ago. It provides a distinct contrast to gridded streets of the south side and inserts a compact touch of the pastoral to urban life. JPD is very lightly trafficked and that along with its significant width allows motor vehicles and recreational users to coexist without apparent danger ( though speed bumps would help to stop the occasional speeder); it serves the neighborhood as a place for recreation and to appreciate the surrounding aesthetics and quiet; every day I see a number of people walk, jog, bicycle, push invalid companions in wheelchairs, exercise their pets past my home.

I vividly remember a young man at the November meeting getting up to speak. He seemed to sneer as he sarcastically asked those of us who wish to preserve the status quo of JPD (but with new paving) if “we think we are living in Franklin?” The speaker by those words seemed to suggest that civic beauty and elegance can only exist in areas of greater wealth than that possessed by Jackson Park residents, and that we were guilty of deluding ourselves of where we live. While it is true that the per capita income of JP households is roughly 2/3rds to that of Franklin residents, one only needs to walk through the JP neighborhood and witness how residents work hard to maintain their homes to see that the concern and appreciation of beauty is not exclusively confined to those wealthier than us.

Those who have designed the proposal to narrow and barricade JPD and augment it with walking paths have wrapped their proposal with language of “increasing green space” and providing “ecological benefit” even though they have offered no empirical support for their vacuous words. I would humbly suggest that their efforts would better be described as philistinism adorned in modern jargon. Several months ago, the Journal Sentinel published a photographic feature concerning beautiful Milwaukee homes and buildings erected in the distant past that were torn down and replaced. Next to the picture of the old structure was a picture of the area at present — usually derelict in appearance. I imagine every person who looked at each pair of photos questioned what Satanic forces of utter stupidity and ignorance caused someone to decide to demolish a glorious building and replace it with something banal. Yet, I am sure that the person back then who made the decision to demolish and replace thought the solution achieved progress just as the creators of the present plan to barricade and narrow JPD likely conceive their efforts will accomplish the same. But this is not progress: rather, if you are successful, you will have succeeded in desecrating a small but beautiful section of the neighborhood and replacing it with an abomination.

Robert Lipak

Our address is on Andover Road, but our back yard, picture windows and outdoor patio all face JPD. We would like the road resurfaced as is, as indicated in Alternative D. This alternative provides so many benefits, that we have now, that the original plan and other alternatives take away. First, ALL the homes with addresses on JPD can keep them as they were designed (including the addresses) and guests to these homes can park on the street and approach the FRONT door. People that drive to this area for picnicking, dog runs, and use of the river embankment for their remote-controlled cars, or winter sledding, have places to park. Autumn leaf piles and their collections would not have the effect on traffic as it would with a narrowed roadway, and leaves would not have to be hauled to the Andover or Jerelyn side if the yard as they would with Alternative B.

As others have mentioned, Alternative B does not provide any line of demarcation of where current properties begin which could lead trail users to stretch their use into private yards. This could also lead to more fences being built that would take away the beauty of the open parkway.

With Alternative D, minimal work would need to be done to the subsurface sewer lines and catch basins, and it has the second cheapest alternative cost, per the published estimates. Keeping JPD the same size that it is now gives the residents what virtually everyone along the parkway wants. Let's keep it that way.
Jim Daul

I am opposed to any bike path or change to our street. We've had several meetings already, with the majority of residents opposed to this project (most in favor do not live on JPD). I am in favor of Plan D (repaving our Jackson Park Drive), and moving forward. As a resident who lives on JPD, I feel this proposal was absolutely wrong. The requesting of residents to change their addresses, deal with more crime due to the isolated "bike path", the dangers that come along with having an isolated bike path with no street lights, the generous number of coyotes in the area that will multiply due to more green space (who wants to walk on a path full of coyotes??), the non-access for emergency vehicles for those with main front doors facing JPD, the loss of value in beautiful homes due to increased crime and "bike paths" to no where, the decreased value in homes by changing the address from JPD to numbered streets, etc....all of this is absolutely ridiculous, and should never have even been considered. My list could go on and on. The vast majority of residents on JPD are opposed to this project and have shown that in all of the past meetings. The pot holes have been fixed as a temporary. Please leave our beautiful neighborhood alone. 5305 W. Jackson Park Drive -Casey

STOP PLAYING LOW AND MANIPULATING VOTING DATA, GETTING SUPPORT FROM FAKE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I SMELL A LAWSUIT THAT WILL APPARENTLY STOP THE PROJECT BECAUSE MILWAUKEE IS IN DEEP DEBT AND NO MONEY FOR ANOTHER LAWSUIT.

The organizer paid people not living in the neighborhood to rig the vote results last time at the meeting online, everybody litter can sign up for an account and vote. This is a crime, we will need data from the vote results for lawsuit. PEOPLE LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DID THEIR OWN VOTE, IT'S OBVIOUSLY OPTION A. NOBODY WANT A BIKE TRAIL. STOP PLAYING DIRTY. We can hire cybersecurity to analyze the dirty voting data.

WE DON'T WANT BIKE TRAIL

I am in preference of option B, but do support option C as well. It seems like a lot of the negative comments are fear based, anecdotal, and not considering the value that parks provide to all residents. It is well understood in the natural resource management field that usable green space increases visitation, increases property value, decreases crime, and offers health benefits (both mental and physical) to residents and park visitors. Additionally, implementing a dedicated, separate bike lane would not just benefit bikers, it would also act as a usable and safe pathway for those wheelchair users who do not want to risk getting hit by cars.

Milwaukee needs more opportunities to decrease car dependency and encourage alternative modes of transportation. This project could also reduce reckless driving, which most residents are aware is a big issue in the city! What an excellent opportunity!

Option B seems the best way to accommodate strict budget concerns while increasing associated property value.

Option B seems to be the most pragmatic solution in a County Park system that seems to be constantly budget-short, especially considering the existing roadway is redundant auto-access. As a person who bikes the KK River trail, additional mixed use trail is direly needed. I would never trust my kids to bike on JPD, which is in my opinion a failure of the trail and the parks system. A protected multi-use path would benefit our most vulnerable and make sure people can have a relaxed, safe park experience without the looming threat of the reckless driving issue in Milwaukee.
This project is right in line with the recent decision to not repave Lake Park on the East Side. That project has shown an overwhelming majority of park-goers want a space to get away from the stress of cars.
Our parks should be spending our tax dollars on actual park things, not redundant pavement. Ditch the asphalt. Put the savings toward things that add direct value to the community.

I am very glad that the parks commission is working on this. As a resident of the neighborhood, the lack of paved walking and biking options to enjoy this beautiful park is severely limiting. My wife and I have largely stopped walking down Jackson Park Drive simply because walking down the street feels so remarkably unsafe. Between the crumbling pavement underfoot and the cars that treat JPD as their own personal speedway, it feels like walking in this area is taking your life into your hands. I think any plan that doesn't include at a minimum both traffic calming and pedestrian/bike infrastructure is a failure to the community, outright. Even further, I think the case study of W. Rita Drive, on the north side of the parkway, shows that even when pedestrian infrastructure is present, a secluded and winding road way is an invitation for some drivers to reach unsafe speeds. Walking along W Rita is not as bad as JPD but it still doesn't feel great. I think the community deserves some good, protected, car free space. I think the outcry at losing car access to JPD is, frankly, short sighted nimbyism. The vast majority of traffic along JPD, beyond the proposed cul-de-sac, in my experience, has been delivery drivers and speeders. I think replacing it, like for like, would be a betrayal to this community. Shouldn't a park and the road network serve the entire community and not just those who, by happenstance, have their addresses along JPD and not along Andover and Jerelyn? Wouldn't the protected area for our families, our children, our elderly to enjoy be better than a new road?

A great idea! 100% behind the project. I live on JPDrive. I look forward to the improvements in the road and walkways for dog walkers, bicycles and general walking while preserving/upgrading the natural spaces. Whatever is decided I hope it includes traffic calming and walking/biking pathways. Thanks to County parks for continued service to the community. Your stewardship is greatly appreciated.

My husband and I live on JPD. We have many questions and concerns about this proposal, from safety to environmental impact to cost. For one, many people use the roadway like a path already, but that path is currently much wider than the 10ft proposed bike path and has a clear delineation between what is park and what is private yard. With elimination of the street how are path users to know where the park ends and my yard begins? We sadly have many walkers who do not follow leash laws and allow their dogs to roam freely on the parkway side of the street (already aggravating for residents). Without the road as a boundary their dogs will roam into our yards. Who will be responsible when one of those loose dogs runs into my yard and attacks my own dogs? Will the county provide any fencing to stop people from using our yards as an extension of the park? A path that is only 10 ft wide doesn't create enough of a buffer for people walking their dogs in opposite directions, which is going to lead to more altercations and possible injury, especially when you factor in the increase in off leash activity that will occur without a street.
How will the loss of the street and the change in address effect our property values? Will we lose the easement, which is a full 21 feet of our front yard, to this project? What kind of environmental impact will this have and is it enough of a benefit to warrant such a dramatic change? We are experiencing massive erosion of the KK riverbank with every heavy rainfall and without the street side storm sewers even more water will be flowing across the paved path into the river. Would this project include planted vegetation to mitigate runoff and erosion? We feel the money would be better spent protecting the river rather than creating a bike path that doesn't connect to anything.
We are also concerned about the safety of not only our property but people who be using the path/park if this project were to become reality. There are no streetlights in this area. Will there be more injuries of people falling into the KK or drowning when the water is high? Will there be attacks on bikers/joggers along this path as a result of the secluded feel and lack of streetlights? How would emergency vehicles get to an injured person on the path? Will we see more tent cities? Will the lack of boundary between the path and our yards lead to more burglaries? Since there will be no street to park on, will we have to contend with people parking on Andover and walking between our houses to get to the parkway? We already struggle with street parking on the nearby roads, an increase in traffic and parking on those streets (which also haven't been repaved in forever) will increase accidents. Those of us who enjoy living on the quiet, safe street would like answers to these safety concerns but no one at the open house was able to provide them. In fact, their lack of knowledge about the parkway and how it is utilized was astounding. The answer to most concerns brought forth by my neighbors was "we haven't thought about that". Why is the project being proposed at all if these relatively obvious issues haven't been considered?
I have not found a single neighbor on my end of JPD who is in favor of this project the way it is proposed. I have talked with multiple people about the idea of narrowing the street to reduce maintenance costs going forward, which would provide a small expansion of the parkway, but I cannot find anyone with a house directly on the proposed path that is ok with losing street access. There are too many unanswered questions and concerns. We do not agree with this plan.