Powered by iPetitions - Start your online petition now

Signatures 479 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 10 »

  1. 1
    Name: Kristie on Feb 25, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  2. 2
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  3. 3
    Name: Larry Wolf on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  4. 4
    Name: Justin Peters on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  5. 5
    Name: Allen Stasiewski on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  6. 6
    Name: Susan Nettesheim on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  7. 7
    Name: Richard Nettesheim on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  8. 8
    Name: Jennifer Wolf on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  9. 9
    Name: Diana Felsmann on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  10. 10
    Name: Alexis La Joie on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  11. 11
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  12. 12
    Name: James Bartz on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments: I support the "No Build, Improve" option regarding the Waukesha Bypass.
    Flag
  13. 13
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  14. 14
    Name: Mark Ford on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments: This plan does not 'bypass' anything. It would require so many lights its ridiculous. Improvements yes, 4 lane bypass no.
    Flag
  15. 15
    Name: Kristy Spellman on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  16. 16
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments: This bypass proposal was originally a carrot held out to the Godfrey company to keep them around...they're long gone and the bypass proposal should be long gone with them. Also, let's get anyone from Target off the panel making decisions, they're not really interested in the community.
    Flag
  17. 17
    Name: Justin Jehn on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments: Minimize any loss of wetlands or primary environmental corridor. Improve stream crossings to minimize road runoff into streams.
    Flag
  18. 18
    Name: Marilyn Ford on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments: Makes sense to me.
    Flag
  19. 19
    Name: Katie J Kasper on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  20. 20
    Name: Pete Brierton on Feb 27, 2011
    Comments: I support this ban.
    Flag
  21. 21
    Name: Bruce Bell on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: The "by-pass should go further west as major improvements have been made and will continue next year to Hwy 83. If improvements are to be made to TT I would like to see a bike path that connects Glacial Drumlin Trail to the path just north of Hwy 18 at Fox Run. I would also suggest that improvements to TT should include a boulevard/median design with a stop sign or round-about at every intersection from Sunset to Hwy 18,along with a reduced speed limit. This would improve safety and make it easier for people that live along the route to access TT.
    Flag
  22. 22
    Name: Dylan Keller on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: Stop trying to build in wetlands, its disgraceful.
    Flag
  23. 23
    Name: James And Lynda Bodis on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  24. 24
    Name: Jocelyn DeCloux on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  25. 25
    Name: Bill & Kris Desmond on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  26. 26
    Name: Susan Bell on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: I strongly oppose any destruction to the Pebble Creek corridor for the sake of a road.
    Flag
  27. 27
    Name: T Buchholtz on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: The items above are all that is needed not a 4-lane mess. A by-pass for all intensive purposes normally goes around a large city at 55 or 60 mph. The current by-pass is just another road going 45. If people can't handle what is currently there, leave earlier or find a new route. Stop this continual destruction of our natural areas.
    Flag
  28. 28
    Name: Ryan Fisk on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  29. 29
    Name: Thomas Ellenson on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: go for it
    Flag
  30. 30
    Name: Margie Ahler on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: Please..."NO Build"!!!!
    Flag
  31. 31
    Name: Derrick Ahler on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: iI you build a bypass,you will only attract more traffic.We moved here in Kame Terrace for the beauty and the serenity of nature,lets keep it this way!
    Flag
  32. 32
    Name: Halley A Ahler on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  33. 33
    Name: Charlene Sivyer on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: These improvements are exactly what we need to improve quality of life and environmental sustainability in the Town of Waukesha.
    Flag
  34. 34
    Name: Harrison Keyes on Feb 28, 2011
    Comments: Please consider these options. There are too many stop lights on the "bypass" to call it a "bypass". Lets improve what we have to save money in these hard economic times. Thank you for listening!!
    Flag
  35. 35
    Name: Alexa Ahler on Mar 1, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  36. 36
    Name: Anne Utech on Mar 1, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  37. 37
    Name: Courtney Bell on Mar 1, 2011
    Comments: Please do not expand the highway. I grew up in that area, my parents live in that area, and I would be devastated to see it paved over. This would be terrible for all of the wildlife in the wetlands and surrounding nature as well. Waukesha does not need this. Keep our town safe and quiet and enjoyable for generations to come!
    Flag
  38. 38
    Name: Jeff Yorton on Mar 2, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  39. 39
    Name: Gabriele LaJoie on Mar 2, 2011
    Comments: Do NOT build this bypass! It is NOT needed! This is a WASTE of money and a poisonous project! How dare you propose spending money on widening a road that is already big enough but you refuse to build transit alternatives such as rail?! SHAME ON YOU!
    Flag
  40. 40
    Name: William La Joie on Mar 2, 2011
    Comments: We do not support building the western bypass! Merrill Hills Road is wide enough and this will only make traffic worse! DO NOT BUILD THE BYPASS!
    Flag
  41. 41
    Name: Nicholas La Joie on Mar 2, 2011
    Comments: This project was flawed from the start. The committee pushing for this bypass is run by the developers and engineers who stand to profit from its construction. The fact is that this bypass is totally and completely unnecessary. It will ruin the rural landscape and will only make development and congestion worse in the region. INVEST IN TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES SUCH AS RAIL INSTEAD!
    Flag
  42. 42
    Name: Brian Baumler on Mar 3, 2011
    Comments: I agree that the above suggestions are all that needs to be done.
    Flag
  43. 43
    Name: Terence W. Amerson on Mar 3, 2011
    Comments: The suggestions listed on this thoughtful petition are first rate! The EXISTING roads are in need of basic improvements, and no one would reasonably suggest otherwise. Fix and improve only on the existing footprint. That is where all discussion should be focussed. To even suggest further traversing a pristine wetland is a non starter for any forward thinking municipality. Threatening a unique neighborhood with a "rustic road", not to mention remove 250 year old trees and architecturally significant homes is just plain dumb. My last point: didn't our Governor Walker declare Wisconsin "broke"? Unless he is lying, we can't afford new, expensive and highly controversial roads. Do not bypass Waukesha.
    Flag
  44. 44
    Name: Maureen German on Mar 5, 2011
    Comments: I support "Improve, No Build Opption"
    Flag
  45. 45
    Name: Linda Franz on Mar 7, 2011
    Comments: Just because land is available doesn't mean it should be used.
    Flag
  46. 46
    Name: Holly Bartz on Mar 9, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  47. 47
    Name: Peter Rathmann on Mar 12, 2011
    Comments: We do not need a new road. We can't even take care of the roads we have built. Fix those!
    Flag
  48. 48
    Name: Krista Nelson on Mar 19, 2011
    Comments: Let me know if I can help! This is wonderful!
    Flag
  49. 49
    Name: David Stasiewski on Mar 19, 2011
    Comments: Great Petition you're a much better writer then i am.
    Flag
  50. 50
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 20, 2011
    Comments: I agree with all the reasons stated above to NOT REBUILD but improve the existing bypass. I would think with the budget deficit that exists in our state another more practical very good plan should be inacted. We are cutting so many departments in our state government why not make IMPROVEMENTS which is a cheaper plan?? I also think the Department of Transpportation should be affected by these cuts that all state agencies are going to have to live with. A practical, wisely planed alternative plan should go forward.
    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 10 »

Sponsored links