News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Milwaukee area freeways

Started by triplemultiplex, February 22, 2011, 03:58:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SEWIGuy

Quote from: dvferyance on December 22, 2016, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 20, 2016, 02:08:17 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 20, 2016, 01:49:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 16, 2016, 08:39:36 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 16, 2016, 06:47:24 PM
The I-94 project down to Illinois needs to be finished. It's mostly done in Kenosha County and I have seen lots of new development and that brings in new jobs. Racine County could benefit too if it would be finished. It would bring more jobs to the region. How many jobs would be created by making a slight adjustment to the north end of the stadium? Absolutely zero.


Well that's not true.

Regardless that's not the only reason road projects are done.
Apparently you haven't been down there. There is an enormous Amazon distribution center. The Mars Cheese Castle is expanding. I have seen other new development I am just not sure what it is right now. I don't want to hear any complaining the current projects aren't being finished when new ones keep starting up. It makes perfect sense finish what you have started before starting something else. That really should be very easy to understand. The reality is there is not an unlimited amount of money.


Actually what I said wasn't true was that the slight adjustment wouldn't create any jobs.

And you don't construct projects to their completion before even planning for the next ones.  That is inefficient and a waste of money.  You plan while other projects are being constructed.  If there is too much of a planning backlog, you cut back by either laying off or hiring less planners.  (Which may end up happening if construction projects keep getting delayed.)

My experience is that WIDOT is pretty good at allocating its resources given the boundaries in which it operates, including the political boundaries.  Some random dude on a message board listening to talk radio may *THINK* he knows better, but he very likely does not.
Isn't it just common sense that your main priority should be finishing projects already underway before starting new ones? That make sense when it comes to anything not just road building. Let's finish the zoo and I-94 and I-39/90 then we can talk about doing something else.


No.  It is not common sense for an agency with as much responsibility as WIDOT to not plan for any projects until all the others are completed.  That's exactly the point I am making.  Your idea is the very opposite of common sense.


compdude787

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 22, 2016, 09:48:00 PM

No.  It is not common sense for an agency with as much responsibility as WIDOT to not plan for any projects until all the others are completed.  That's exactly the point I am making.  Your idea is the very opposite of common sense.

You're exactly right. As long as populations increase, there will always be new road improvement projects to be done. It makes sense to start planning new ones as you're working on constructing previously-planned improvements. And plus, you'll keep the construction companies in business when you have a steady stream of projects for them to work on.  :nod:

dvferyance

#227
Quote from: compdude787 on December 22, 2016, 10:43:05 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 22, 2016, 09:48:00 PM

No.  It is not common sense for an agency with as much responsibility as WIDOT to not plan for any projects until all the others are completed.  That's exactly the point I am making.  Your idea is the very opposite of common sense.

You're exactly right. As long as populations increase, there will always be new road improvement projects to be done. It makes sense to start planning new ones as you're working on constructing previously-planned improvements. And plus, you'll keep the construction companies in business when you have a steady stream of projects for them to work on.  :nod:
Yeah that's a good reason we need to spend more money on road projects to keep the construction companies in business. Despite the fact the transportation fund is broke and regardless of whether it's needed or not we need to go out there and start spending even more money we don't have.

JREwing78

The money's there. It's just not politically expedient to collect it.

What's ridiculous is that they can't bring themselves to take the short-term political hit to raise the gas tax sufficiently to stay solvent.

GeekJedi

Quote from: dvferyance on December 23, 2016, 05:56:56 PM
Yeah that's a good reason we need to spend more money on road projects to keep the construction companies in business.

Way to cherry pick one solitary part of the debate. Again, you're wrong.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

mgk920

Quote from: GeekJedi on December 24, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 23, 2016, 05:56:56 PM
Yeah that's a good reason we need to spend more money on road projects to keep the construction companies in business.

Way to cherry pick one solitary part of the debate. Again, you're wrong.

Fully agreed - I would be supporting projects that I like just as much as I do now if WisDOT could do the work more cheaply 'in house'.  To me, who does the work is immaterial.

Mike

colinstu

Husband took me flying today.

I took pictures over Milwaukee, check out the work on the Zoo / Downtown, etc.

https://colinstu.smugmug.com/Flying-03-12-2017

dvferyance

#232
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 24, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 23, 2016, 05:56:56 PM
Yeah that's a good reason we need to spend more money on road projects to keep the construction companies in business.

Way to cherry pick one solitary part of the debate. Again, you're wrong.
Wrong about what? I was making a point that you don't just do a road project just to give construction contractors a job. You have to have a justification that the project is something that is needed and the money is there to pay for it. I don't see how that is so wrong.

GeekJedi

#233
Quote from: dvferyance on March 18, 2017, 06:43:00 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on December 24, 2016, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on December 23, 2016, 05:56:56 PM
Yeah that's a good reason we need to spend more money on road projects to keep the construction companies in business.

Way to cherry pick one solitary part of the debate. Again, you're wrong.
Wrong about what? I was making a point that you don't just do a road project just to give construction contractors a job. You have to have a justification that the project is something that is needed and the money is there to pay for it. I don't see how that is so wrong.

It's not wrong if that was the sole reason, but it wasn't.

He said " It makes sense to start planning new ones as you're working on constructing previously-planned improvements". That was the reason. He added, as an aside, "you'll keep the construction companies in business when you have a steady stream of projects for them to work on."

Your argument is "one project as a time". You picked the one comment that you felt supported your claim and ignored everything else thinking that it proved your point. However, you're wrong in your assertion. The justification he stated was not to keep construction companies employed. The justification is that it makes sense to start planning new projects as you're working on current ones. You read the part you wanted to read and responded to that, but the statements were meant to be taken together.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

compdude787

The comment I made about keeping construction companies in business was simply an aside, and not really the main reason why DOTs should plan out new construction projects as they are working on current ones.

colinstu


triplemultiplex

WisDOT would do well to get behind option 4, the one with more boulevard.  They've caught a lot of flak over their freeway expansions in Milwaukee, so why not throw the city a bone here?  They moved the zoo so they could build this stub freeway.  (Okay not entirely true, they wanted a bigger space and stuff, but c'mon; how many other freeways tore down a zoo to be built?  Washington Park was once the Central Park of Milwaukee and they slapped an empty, six lane freeway on it.) Plus it'll cost less in the long term with one less bridge to maintain.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

colinstu

Agreed. Option 4 is the way to go.

FightingIrish

I worry about how option 4 will create more gridlock and traffic problems around the Lloyd St. intersection. The Lloyd St. bridge is at least more pedestrian-friendly, especially with the parks in the area.

I am in favor of shifting the southbound entrance to the Stadium Freeway a block to the east, and filling in the area between that and 47th St. with greenspace/park. I noticed that the old bank and accompanying parking lot have already been taken out.


The Ghostbuster

Whichever option is picked, I wonder whether this project will be built before, during, or after the Interstate 94 (70th St. to 16th St.) project. I would think it would be built in conjunction with the Interstate 94 project, but I could be wrong.

mgk920

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2017, 05:29:27 PM
Whichever option is picked, I wonder whether this project will be built before, during, or after the Interstate 94 (70th St. to 16th St.) project. I would think it would be built in conjunction with the Interstate 94 project, but I could be wrong.

Is WisDOT considering downgrading the Stadium Interchange as part of this?

Mike

colinstu

It's ultimately an upgrade from what it is now.

Yeah it's won't be directional stack like it is now, there will be some lights on the N-S segment, but otherwise the whole thing is a huge upgrade.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/94ew-study/final-eis.pdf
page 157.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/94ew-study/preferred-alternative-v4.pdf


The Ghostbuster

Given how short the north and south legs of the existing Stadium Interchange, its obvious why the DOT chose the downgrade option. Will the new ramps need one or two lanes to operate sufficiently?

triplemultiplex

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2017, 05:29:27 PM
Whichever option is picked, I wonder whether this project will be built before, during, or after the Interstate 94 (70th St. to 16th St.) project. I would think it would be built in conjunction with the Interstate 94 project, but I could be wrong.

It's my understanding this is separate from the delayed I-94 project, so I think that means it could happen before, during or after, depending on funding.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

triplemultiplex

Drove through the Zoo Interchange project over the weekend and core of the interchange has really taken shape.  Due to slow traffic on the NB->WB ramp I was using, there was ample opportunity to scope it out from the driver's seat.  Lots of decks being poured right now.

The Zoo has gone from unimpressive to massive as one approaches it.  It finally looks the part of Wisconsin's busiest freeway interchange.

I've meant to discuss this before, but I noticed they are replacing the Elm Grove Road overpass on the west end of the project.   All the maps show the project limits to be immediately west of Underwood Parkway, so to see this bridge replaced is curious and also a bit tantalizing.  The prospect of a 4th lane in either direction all the way to Goerkes Corner seems that much closer.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

colinstu

I asked the Zoo Interchange twitter account about a 4th/aux lane and they confirmed a proposal for one is in the works. It's apparently a matter of approval or not. I haven't discovered any real documents or plans for it though.

The Ghostbuster

Have any of the 18 ft. shoulders planned for Interstate 94 been constructed yet?

Milwaukee, WY

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 11, 2017, 11:38:42 PM
Drove through the Zoo Interchange project over the weekend and core of the interchange has really taken shape.  Due to slow traffic on the NB->WB ramp I was using, there was ample opportunity to scope it out from the driver's seat.  Lots of decks being poured right now.

The Zoo has gone from unimpressive to massive as one approaches it.  It finally looks the part of Wisconsin's busiest freeway interchange.

I've meant to discuss this before, but I noticed they are replacing the Elm Grove Road overpass on the west end of the project.   All the maps show the project limits to be immediately west of Underwood Parkway, so to see this bridge replaced is curious and also a bit tantalizing.  The prospect of a 4th lane in either direction all the way to Goerkes Corner seems that much closer.

The MJS reported within the last two years that WisDOT was adding a fourth lane in each direction between the Zoo Project and Moorland Road in conjunction with replacing the overpasses at Elm Grove and Sunny Slope Rds. I'll see if I can find the article and add it here.

colinstu


dvferyance

Quote from: Milwaukee, WY on June 15, 2017, 10:14:14 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 11, 2017, 11:38:42 PM
Drove through the Zoo Interchange project over the weekend and core of the interchange has really taken shape.  Due to slow traffic on the NB->WB ramp I was using, there was ample opportunity to scope it out from the driver's seat.  Lots of decks being poured right now.

The Zoo has gone from unimpressive to massive as one approaches it.  It finally looks the part of Wisconsin's busiest freeway interchange.

I've meant to discuss this before, but I noticed they are replacing the Elm Grove Road overpass on the west end of the project.   All the maps show the project limits to be immediately west of Underwood Parkway, so to see this bridge replaced is curious and also a bit tantalizing.  The prospect of a 4th lane in either direction all the way to Goerkes Corner seems that much closer.

The MJS reported within the last two years that WisDOT was adding a fourth lane in each direction between the Zoo Project and Moorland Road in conjunction with replacing the overpasses at Elm Grove and Sunny Slope Rds. I'll see if I can find the article and add it here.
I would have liked to see an interchange there but I ma sure there would be way too much local opposition to that.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.