There is currently a study called "Reimagining WIS 175 Study" which will find alternatives for the future of the WIS 175 corridor. A Public Involvement Meeting is planned for Thursday, May 11 from 4 pm-7 pm at Washington Park Senior Center 4420 West Vliet Street, Milwaukee.
Relevant Links
WisDOT study website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/175study/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/175study/default.aspx)
Online comments site where you can input what you would want to see https://graef.mysocialpinpoint.com/wisdot175/map#/ (https://graef.mysocialpinpoint.com/wisdot175/map#/)
The anti-freeway people in metro Milwaukeeland have been salivating over this one for many years now, too.
Mike
As they should. It's useless north of the interstate.
Quote from: chrismarion100 on April 21, 2023, 12:08:02 AM
There is currently a study called "Reimagining WIS 175 Study" which will find alternatives for the future of the WIS 175 corridor. A Public Involvement Meeting is planned for Thursday, May 11 from 4 pm-7 pm at Washington Park Senior Center 4420 West Vliet Street, Milwaukee.
Relevant Links
WisDOT study website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/175study/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/175study/default.aspx)
Online comments site where you can input what you would want to see https://graef.mysocialpinpoint.com/wisdot175/map#/ (https://graef.mysocialpinpoint.com/wisdot175/map#/)
The word "reimagining" is always a red flag. It means that the people positing a given plan are marketing it as one thing, when the true plan is something that's not quite what you're led to believe - and a whole lot less desirable.
Wasn't this supposed to be a much longer freeway? I support removing stubs and unfinished freeways, not the ones that actually were completed fully. the stubs tend to not be very useful but it depends on the city.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 21, 2023, 09:41:03 AM
Wasn't this supposed to be a much longer freeway? I support removing stubs and unfinished freeways, not the ones that actually were completed fully. the stubs tend to not be very useful but it depends on the city.
In fact, it was proposed to end at Port Washington to the north, and I-43/I-894 to the south. The northern extension included interchanges with two unbuilt freeways (Park West and Bay, plus Fond du Lac). A parking lot has been built on top of what would've been the southern terminus.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 21, 2023, 08:53:23 AM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on April 21, 2023, 12:08:02 AM
There is currently a study called "Reimagining WIS 175 Study" which will find alternatives for the future of the WIS 175 corridor. A Public Involvement Meeting is planned for Thursday, May 11 from 4 pm-7 pm at Washington Park Senior Center 4420 West Vliet Street, Milwaukee.
Relevant Links
WisDOT study website: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/175study/default.aspx (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/175study/default.aspx)
Online comments site where you can input what you would want to see https://graef.mysocialpinpoint.com/wisdot175/map#/ (https://graef.mysocialpinpoint.com/wisdot175/map#/)
The word "reimagining" is always a red flag. It means that the people positing a given plan are marketing it as one thing, when the true plan is something that's not quite what you're led to believe - and a whole lot less desirable.
In this case, there is nothing less desirable than what already exists. It's useless.
Keeping the freeway south of I-94 to National Avenue is fine. It helps with parking around American Family Field and gets people through the Valley otherwise. There is nothing that the north stub does that can't be done better with a nice, surface boulevard.
I would leave the freeway mostly intact, only making the portion north of the W. Lloyd St. overpass a boulevard (although I could live with making it a four-lane 45 MPH parkway). I would remove the ramps at the Stadium North Freeway's northern terminus and have the mainline end at a signaled intersection at Lisbon Ave., where the Associated Bank building once stood. I would also add exit numbers to Brewers Boulevard and the Stadium North Freeway: with the interchange at the American Family Field being Exit 1A; Interstate 94 East would be 1B and 94 West 1C (they would keep these numbers even after the Stadium Interchange is reconstructed as a diverging-diamond interchange); Wisconsin Ave./Bluemound Rd./US 18 would be 1D; State Street/Vliet Street would be 1E; Washington Blvd. would be 2A, and Lloyd St. would be 2B.
As it exists, the Stadium North Freeway is a barrier between Washington Park and the Washington Heights neighborhood.
I would retain the split diamond at Wisconsin & Wells and the bridge over the Menomonee Valley, but north of where the bridge lands, the downgrade should happen.
The old freeway should either direct feed 47th St or become a small boulevard built along the eastern edge of the existing r/w. The former allows one to expand Washington Park west. The latter opens a path between the boulevard and 47th St for new homes.
I see the first at-grade intersection to be at Martin Drive where NB on/off ramps currently exist.
The boulevard would be constructed similar to the ones that already exist in the neighborhood. It would be a good fit.
The time is coming to do something as the existing overpasses over the freeway trench will be aging out soon. Certainly makes more sense to me to remove the future maintenance burden given the low utility of the Stadium North.
I do think it makes sense to retain the split diamond at Wisconsin & Wells, like I said, because of the topography. It would make for an awkward hill to try and bring WI 175 up to the 'surface' grade only to have it plunge back down over the Menomonee River. Then one is also looking at an extremely complicated 5-way intersection with Wisconsin Ave, Bluemound Rd & WI 175 if one tries to bring it all up to the same grade. It'll be simpler to retain the existing grade separations at this location.
North of the Valley, though, fill it all in. There are a lot of better uses for that giant r/w than saving cars one minute.
Quote from: Henry on April 21, 2023, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 21, 2023, 09:41:03 AM
Wasn't this supposed to be a much longer freeway? I support removing stubs and unfinished freeways, not the ones that actually were completed fully. the stubs tend to not be very useful but it depends on the city.
In fact, it was proposed to end at Port Washington to the north, and I-43/I-894 to the south. The northern extension included interchanges with two unbuilt freeways (Park West and Bay, plus Fond du Lac). A parking lot has been built on top of what would've been the southern terminus.
In fact, one can easily see where the ramps, bridges and roadways of the north end of that freeway were originally planned to be at the I-43/WI 57 split by Port Washington.
Mike
The "Saukville Interchange" is an interesting place.
Clearly a wide r/w for a much larger interchange is seen in the parcels:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/saukville-aerial.png)
Throw on the 1 foot elevation contours and one can see the grading of a ghost ramp in the median of I-43:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/saukville-contour.png)
I long assumed the grading you can see from the highway as you're passing through this interchange was for a SB WI 57 -> NB I-43 ramp that was never built, thus making it a directional Y interchange. But looking at the curve and angle of that grading now, it seems more like it was intended for a ramp coming in from the east:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/saukville-contour-annot.png)
The lack of any grading in the median of WI 57 for my assumed ramp suggests they were thinking about the Stadium North Freeway coming in from the west some day at the time this interchange was constructed. The parcel boundary in the northeast quadrant does suggest it would have been a full access interchange since there'd be no need to have the r/w shaped like that if the intent wasn't to have a ramp from SB I-43 to NB WI 57.
This contrasts with the r/w west of the freeway where no extra was acquired (or if it was, it was sold back). Except for the one parcel on the north slope of the hill SB WI 57 cuts through. That parcel line mirrors pretty well the curve of a ramp from SB WI 57 to WB on the Stadium Freeway.
Based on this, I think I can sketch out the interchange WisDOT had in mind 50 years ago. I might do that this weekend.
Also the space between the NB WI 57 roadway and the SB I-43 bridge above it. There is enough room for another bridge between them.
The view from NB WI 57:
https://goo.gl/maps/htHtjj8zb9Xbwo2y7
Mike
^^ And the bridge plans for that overpass specifically show a "future" Stadium North freeway bridge.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 21, 2023, 09:41:03 AM
Wasn't this supposed to be a much longer freeway? I support removing stubs and unfinished freeways, not the ones that actually were completed fully. the stubs tend to not be very useful but it depends on the city.
I don't, one day in the future if we can ever get our costs down we can build freeway tunnels in cities and these stubs will prove useful.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 21, 2023, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 21, 2023, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 21, 2023, 09:41:03 AM
Wasn't this supposed to be a much longer freeway? I support removing stubs and unfinished freeways, not the ones that actually were completed fully. the stubs tend to not be very useful but it depends on the city.
In fact, it was proposed to end at Port Washington to the north, and I-43/I-894 to the south. The northern extension included interchanges with two unbuilt freeways (Park West and Bay, plus Fond du Lac). A parking lot has been built on top of what would've been the southern terminus.
In fact, one can easily see where the ramps, bridges and roadways of the north end of that freeway were originally planned to be at the I-43/WI 57 split by Port Washington.
Mike
Jeez, what a disaster that would have been. The anti-freeway sentiment in some cities is justified based on history like this.
I agree with most in this thread. Definitely downgrade the Stadium Fwy north of 94. Keep the interchange with Miller Way. As for the interchange with 94 itself, I would vote for a directional T/diamond hybrid, like I-41/WI-29/Shawano Ave in Green Bay, with the free-flow ramps facing south for Brewers traffic.
I'm pretty much expecting WisDOT to go with replacing the Stadium interchange with a DDI and downgrading the freeway north of the 'valley' to a surface boulevard. The DDI could be engineered to handle the gameday traffic.
Mike
The odd diamond/stack hybrid that came out of the draft EIS as the "preferred" alternative is probably DOA now that the study has been resumed for the Stadium Interchange. The DDI is looking much more reasonable.
anyone have a link to a map that shows all the proposed freeways in Milwaukee? :hmmm:
If you click on the highways, it will tell you some information about the highway.
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/system_map.html (http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/system_map.html)
I'd prefer that the boulevard start at Vliet. This would result in no freeway along the entire west side of Washington Park with the current freeway being downgraded to a parkway along the west boundary of the park. The Stadium Freeway really doesn't interfere with any populated neighborhoods south of Wisconsin. I'd keep the interchanges at Wisconsin and west of the Miller Brewery. As pointed out by others, it might be more costly to put the road at grade due to all the topographic variation than keeping the current alignment.
FWIW, here's some past Milwaukee freeway proposal history (https://americascanceledhighways.com/2018/03/14/just-a-little-bit-milwaukees-park-freeway/).
I would be in favor of having the stub north of the State St interchange become a city boulevard.
However, I would also extend the boulevard to meet with Fond du Lac Ave via Sherman Blvd to the east instead of just ending at Lisbon Ave. I know this is getting in the realm of fictional ideas but Sherman Blvd is already a 4 lane divided boulevard and it would ease traffic on Lisbon Ave if the Stadium Frwy/Blvd could get north to FDL Ave. And the bonus is you really would not have to redo Sherman Blvd north of Meinecke Ave.
Bicycles would be able to use the new boulevard from north of Olmstead Way.
This would also allow it to be a good candidate for future streetcars connecting Fond du Lac Ave and Downtown via Miller Park and National Ave.
Here is the map with my idea.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1GB6nT_bvfMIl57TEExnEyuBmFBy0i2k&usp=sharing
Here is what it could look like.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 23, 2023, 03:00:39 PM
I would be in favor of having the stub north of the State St interchange become a city boulevard.
However, I would also extend the boulevard to meet with Fond du Lac Ave via Sherman Blvd to the east instead of just ending at Lisbon Ave. I know this is getting in the realm of fictional ideas but Sherman Blvd is already a 4 lane divided boulevard and it would ease traffic on Lisbon Ave if the Stadium Frwy/Blvd could get north to FDL Ave. And the bonus is you really would not have to redo Sherman Blvd north of Meinecke Ave.
Bicycles would be able to use the new boulevard from north of Olmstead Way.
This would also allow it to be a good candidate for future streetcars connecting Fond du Lac Ave and Downtown via Miller Park and National Ave.
Here is the map with my idea.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1GB6nT_bvfMIl57TEExnEyuBmFBy0i2k&usp=sharing
Here is what it could look like.
I like that. Very well thought out.
Wis 175/Stadium Freeway and Wis 145/Fond Du Lac Freeways are at the bottom of priorities for rebuilds. The Park East was easy to tear down because it was elevated and the real estate had potential value. Turning the Stadium Freeway into a boulevard would be way more costly since it is below grade. With highway dollars limited, there are a lot higher priorities to use resources towards.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 22, 2023, 12:53:13 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 21, 2023, 09:41:03 AM
Wasn't this supposed to be a much longer freeway? I support removing stubs and unfinished freeways, not the ones that actually were completed fully. the stubs tend to not be very useful but it depends on the city.
I don't, one day in the future if we can ever get our costs down we can build freeway tunnels in cities and these stubs will prove useful.
Putting a freeway in a tunnel under North Milwaukee would be one of the worst decisions imaginable, and there is no way that it will be pursued even if we bring the cost down.
There is another artifact of the Stadium Freeway's future that eventually will need to be dealt with; what exists of the originally-proposed and built southern terminus of the Stadium South Freeway at its junction with Interstates 41/43/894: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9634203,-87.9647316,647m/data=!3m1!1e3. The park-and-ride lot can remain, but the remnants of what was to have been called the Greenfield Interchange needs to be completely removed, and the main lanes of the Airport Freeway needs to be condensed together to eliminate the space in the median. I'm sure that will be addressed whenever that segment of 41/43/894 is reconstructed in the future.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 24, 2023, 04:42:59 PM
The park-and-ride lot can remain, but the remnants of what was to have been called the Greenfield Interchange needs to be completely removed, and the main lanes of the Airport Freeway needs to be condensed together to eliminate the space in the median. I'm sure that will be addressed whenever that segment of 41/43/894 is reconstructed in the future.
Why?
What I said is what I would do to that segment of 41/43/894. Ultimately, the DOT will decide what will truly be done to the corridor. I just hope the DOT expands 41/43/894 to eight lanes whenever it is reconstructed.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2023, 10:14:34 PM
What I said is what I would do to that segment of 41/43/894. Ultimately, the DOT will decide what will truly be done to the corridor. I just hope the DOT expands 41/43/894 to eight lanes whenever it is reconstructed.
I'm just wondering why you believe that the space in the median needs to be eliminated. That's kind of an arbitrary thing.
When Interstate 39/90 was reconstructed, the northbound lanes were placed next to the southbound lanes when the left-hand exit to US 12/18 west was eliminated. I just thought the same thing might be done with that stretch of 41/43/894. Of course, I may be comparing apples to oranges, since the 12/18 interchange was completed, while the "Greenfield Interchange" was built, but never utilized (except for buses formerly: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9618421,-87.9612473,3a,75y,270.59h,89.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stcdbwtG1KMTkswefGMVK7A!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664).
Pretty much a given they'll slap the lanes back together whenever that stretch of freeway comes up for reconstruction. It will make it easier to remove the last, unused bridge in the ghost interchange.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2023, 10:05:05 AM
When Interstate 39/90 was reconstructed, the northbound lanes were placed next to the southbound lanes when the left-hand exit to US 12/18 west was eliminated. I just thought the same thing might be done with that stretch of 41/43/894. Of course, I may be comparing apples to oranges, since the 12/18 interchange was completed, while the "Greenfield Interchange" was built, but never utilized (except for buses formerly: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9618421,-87.9612473,3a,75y,270.59h,89.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stcdbwtG1KMTkswefGMVK7A!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664).
Ahh, OK. That makes sense. I just thought that it was one of those "it's not standard, so it should be removed" things. If they upgrade the area, I'm totally with you on that!
The reimagining Wis 175 study site is now live. WISDOT is studying to see if it should be replaced with an at grade boulevard.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/175study/default.aspx
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
What they really should do if they want to rid the area of the freeway due to noise and pollution is turn the corridor into a linear park and let the existing street grid handle the additional traffic load.
I don't think it's a terrible idea. The demolition of another stub, the Park Freeway, really led to a rennissance of Milwaukee's east side.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
Seems as though the stated scope of the future project would line up with my earlier speculation about the area around Wisconsin, Wells and Bluemound:
Quotea study for WIS 175 between Wisconsin Avenue and Lisbon Avenue.
So to me, that sounds like they won't be altering that area and concern themselves only with the portion north of the Menomonee Valley; bridge included.
Which makes sense, the existing spans have four lanes in each direction (3 GP lanes and 1 aux lane between ramps) and they barely need two.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
But what I'm not understanding is why the need to replace it with a boulevard? Why not just continue it Vliet St. with it becoming at grade right after the RR tracks to allow for an intersection at Martin Dr.? Expand Washington Park to the west and build a new gathering spot or plaza at the northern end of the stub where it splits.
It sounds like they're just going to convert the entire thing to a boulevard London AVE. Which in that case then why not just keep it a freeway?
Granted, I haven't been to Milwaukee so I'm playing the Google Maps armchair expert here.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 01:22:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
But what I'm not understanding is why the need to replace it with a boulevard? Why not just continue it Vliet St. with it becoming at grade right after the RR tracks to allow for an intersection at Martin Dr.? Expand Washington Park to the west and build a new gathering spot or plaza at the northern end of the stub where it splits.
It sounds like they're just going to convert the entire thing to a boulevard London AVE. Which in that case then why not just keep it a freeway?
Granted, I haven't been to Milwaukee so I'm playing the Google Maps armchair expert here.
The simple reason is that a boulevard can be developed and is easier to cross by foot than a freeway.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 03:57:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 01:22:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
But what I'm not understanding is why the need to replace it with a boulevard? Why not just continue it Vliet St. with it becoming at grade right after the RR tracks to allow for an intersection at Martin Dr.? Expand Washington Park to the west and build a new gathering spot or plaza at the northern end of the stub where it splits.
It sounds like they're just going to convert the entire thing to a boulevard London AVE. Which in that case then why not just keep it a freeway?
Granted, I haven't been to Milwaukee so I'm playing the Google Maps armchair expert here.
The simple reason is that a boulevard can be developed and is easier to cross by foot than a freeway.
I'm not seeing a lot of room for development even if it were downgraded to a four lane boulevard without some sort of urban renewal plan where nearby buildings are torn down.
I'll wait to see proposals but I am all in favor of removing the freeway just not replacing it with a boulevard all the way to Libson. It just doesn't make sense to me.
The freeway is an eyesore and probably should go, but replacing it with what will more or less be a Stroad is almost certainly not the right alternative...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 04:21:44 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 03:57:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 01:22:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
But what I'm not understanding is why the need to replace it with a boulevard? Why not just continue it Vliet St. with it becoming at grade right after the RR tracks to allow for an intersection at Martin Dr.? Expand Washington Park to the west and build a new gathering spot or plaza at the northern end of the stub where it splits.
It sounds like they're just going to convert the entire thing to a boulevard London AVE. Which in that case then why not just keep it a freeway?
Granted, I haven't been to Milwaukee so I'm playing the Google Maps armchair expert here.
The simple reason is that a boulevard can be developed and is easier to cross by foot than a freeway.
I'm not seeing a lot of room for development even if it were downgraded to a four lane boulevard without some sort of urban renewal plan where nearby buildings are torn down.
I'll wait to see proposals but I am all in favor of removing the freeway just not replacing it with a boulevard all the way to Libson. It just doesn't make sense to me.
There's plenty of room for development if it is turned into a boulevard.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 10, 2023, 04:56:02 PM
The freeway is an eyesore and probably should go, but replacing it with what will more or less be a Stroad is almost certainly not the right alternative...
Agreed.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 10, 2023, 04:56:02 PM
The freeway is an eyesore and probably should go, but replacing it with what will more or less be a Stroad is almost certainly not the right alternative...
Right! Because if that's the alternative it would be better to keep the freeway as any reductions of noise and unsightly aspects would be minimal and not worth the reduction in travel times and safety risks for pedestrians crossing at grade intersections.
Do it right and convert most of it to a greenway not a boulevard. Let the other streets handle the increased load since it's so minimal.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 04:59:32 PM
There's plenty of room for development if it is turned into a boulevard.
Where? Maybe at Martin Dr but that's one single intersection and a pretty small area.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 04:59:32 PM
There's plenty of room for development if it is turned into a boulevard.
Where? Maybe at Martin Dr but that's one single intersection and a pretty small area.
Pretty much the whole corridor. I used to live near there. You're looking at Google. If you don't believe me, I no longer care.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 04:59:32 PM
There's plenty of room for development if it is turned into a boulevard.
Where? Maybe at Martin Dr but that's one single intersection and a pretty small area.
Pretty much the whole corridor. I used to live near there. You're looking at Google. If you don't believe me, I no longer care.
I mean, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am looking at google. In street view and aerial. I'm just not seeing how it would add a ton of development but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not going to die on this hill so I guess we'll see. I just think it would be smarter to add more park and green space in lieu of road space if this freeway is removed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2023, 12:36:09 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 04:59:32 PM
There's plenty of room for development if it is turned into a boulevard.
Where? Maybe at Martin Dr but that's one single intersection and a pretty small area.
Pretty much the whole corridor. I used to live near there. You're looking at Google. If you don't believe me, I no longer care.
I mean, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am looking at google. In street view and aerial. I'm just not seeing how it would add a ton of development but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not going to die on this hill so I guess we'll see. I just think it would be smarter to add more park and green space in lieu of road space if this freeway is removed.
You don't have to convince me of anything cause I know I have a better understanding of the area than you do.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2023, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2023, 12:36:09 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 04:59:32 PM
There's plenty of room for development if it is turned into a boulevard.
Where? Maybe at Martin Dr but that's one single intersection and a pretty small area.
Pretty much the whole corridor. I used to live near there. You're looking at Google. If you don't believe me, I no longer care.
I mean, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am looking at google. In street view and aerial. I'm just not seeing how it would add a ton of development but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not going to die on this hill so I guess we'll see. I just think it would be smarter to add more park and green space in lieu of road space if this freeway is removed.
You don't have to convince me of anything cause I know I have a better understanding of the area than you do.
Jesus fucking Christ you're being defensive. Tone it down a bit. I never said you didn't have a better understanding and I've admittedly posted I don't know the area and I'm looking at it through google maps.
I'm not going to bother stating anything further. I'll wait until the study is released which should give a better idea of just how much extra land will be available for development if a boulevard replacement is selected.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
A couple of weeks ago I was intrigued by a map that someone made and put up in another forvm that showed a 45 or so degree crossover at Lisbon to directly feed Sherman Boulevard into (stadium boulevard/parkway). I hope that WisDOT gives that one a fair hearing.
Mike
Looking at some AADT numbers, it's almost a 50-50 split in the amount of traffic using the Lloyd St exit and the amount of traffic continuing all the way to the end of the stub. It's actually 55% continuing, 45% using Lloyd St.
Clearly a good chunk of that is folks sliding over to Sherman Blvd. But not quite enough to justify direct feeding a future boulevard into Sherman from the old freeway. So I think the junction of Lloyd and the new surface facility will be nothing special.
The more I look at this area north of Vliet St, the more I'd want the boulevard to be built along the eastern edge of the r/w so there could be residential infill between the new road and 47th St. Washington Heights is a decent middle class neighborhood and I feel like the freed space would fill in just fine, as long as one tries to steer redevelopment to match the neighborhood with reasonable sized detached housing and maybe an apartment building or two thrown in.
Placing the boulevard along 47th St would free up more land for Washington Park, but I feel like new housing would be more beneficial to the area. Washington Park is pretty big to begin with. It was where the zoo was before the 60's, after all. Then I also assume the folks already living on 47th St, which is currently a relatively peaceful side road, won't want to be suddenly living on the "main drag" through their neighborhood.
Too bad they're not doing any more tunneling in the area for like the deep storage system for stormwater. The rock they dug through to make those would've made great fill for the freeway trench. Smashed up limestone is perfect for something like that.
I'm most intrigued by a direct feed in that would direct that traffic away from the park and the pvblic library branch that is on the inside corner of Lloyd and Sherman. I also do like your thoughts regarding putting the (Stadium Boulevard/Parkway) at the east edge of the freeway ROW.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 11, 2023, 02:01:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
A couple of weeks ago I was intrigued by a map that someone made and put up in another forvm that showed a 45 or so degree crossover at Lisbon to directly feed Sherman Boulevard into (stadium boulevard/parkway). I hope that WisDOT gives that one a fair hearing.
Mike
That was my map idea MGK. Here it is again for those whole missed it.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/2/edit?mid=1GB6nT_bvfMIl57TEExnEyuBmFBy0i2k&usp=sharing
^^^ I like that idea but perhaps State St., Martin Dr., and Vliet St. should at grade intersections to better connect the two neighborhoods. They could also remove Alois st. since the new boulevard would serve that traffic anyways. I'd keep everything south of State St including the RR tracks(obviously) grade separated and controlled access.
I'd also propose a roundabout at Sherman BLVD.
Is there purple rectangle over North Ave a proposed bridge?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2023, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 11, 2023, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2023, 12:36:09 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 04:59:32 PM
There's plenty of room for development if it is turned into a boulevard.
Where? Maybe at Martin Dr but that's one single intersection and a pretty small area.
Pretty much the whole corridor. I used to live near there. You're looking at Google. If you don't believe me, I no longer care.
I mean, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am looking at google. In street view and aerial. I'm just not seeing how it would add a ton of development but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not going to die on this hill so I guess we'll see. I just think it would be smarter to add more park and green space in lieu of road space if this freeway is removed.
You don't have to convince me of anything cause I know I have a better understanding of the area than you do.
Jesus fucking Christ you're being defensive. Tone it down a bit. I never said you didn't have a better understanding and I've admittedly posted I don't know the area and I'm looking at it through google maps.
I'm not going to bother stating anything further. I'll wait until the study is released which should give a better idea of just how much extra land will be available for development if a boulevard replacement is selected.
I'm not being defensive. I am talking out of knowledge and experience in the actual area while you're looking at a Google Map. Sorry if I therefore dismiss your thoughts on the matter.
Your proposal is intriguing, hobsini2. However, it would require the removal of homes and businesses, and I don't think the locals would be too happy with that. I think it would be better to terminate the roadway at a signaled intersection at Lisbon Ave. and reconnect 47th St. with Lisbon.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 11, 2023, 07:03:15 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 11, 2023, 02:01:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 10, 2023, 09:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 10, 2023, 02:47:53 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this freeway should be removed. It's in an area dominated by cars. What difference would an at grade boulevard do other than just move traffic but much more inefficiently.
First, the traffic drops off pretty significantly the further north you go.
Second, it really is a barrier in that neighborhood that restricts access to Wick Park and Washington Park. (I used to live in that area in the early 90s.)
But I don't think the entire freeway should be removed. This was expressed by someone else in this topic, but I think they should maintain the freeway northward until it crosses the Menomonee Valley, the railroad tracks and State Street. After that it has plenty of room to become a boulevard starting at Juneau, which can now cut through again. A nice boulevard between that point and Lisbon would function nicely.
A couple of weeks ago I was intrigued by a map that someone made and put up in another forvm that showed a 45 or so degree crossover at Lisbon to directly feed Sherman Boulevard into (stadium boulevard/parkway). I hope that WisDOT gives that one a fair hearing.
Mike
That was my map idea MGK. Here it is again for those whole missed it.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/2/edit?mid=1GB6nT_bvfMIl57TEExnEyuBmFBy0i2k&usp=sharing
Thank you! :nod:
Mike
Destruction of neighborhoods is completely off the table, especially for a stub freeway that doesn't go anywhere. And there would probably still be more traffic to and from Lisbon Ave. than to and from Sherman Ave.
Quote from: thspfc on May 12, 2023, 11:23:13 AM
Destruction of neighborhoods is completely off the table, especially for a stub freeway that doesn't go anywhere. And there would probably still be more traffic to and from Lisbon Ave. than to and from Sherman Ave.
That is a question that will have to be answered, balancing the street traffic that is now on that section of Lloyd by the park and the Pvblic Library branch that is on the inside corner of the corridor turn at Sherman v. those houses and small businesses that will have to be relocated. It's where such planners earn their pay.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2023, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 12, 2023, 11:23:13 AM
Destruction of neighborhoods is completely off the table, especially for a stub freeway that doesn't go anywhere. And there would probably still be more traffic to and from Lisbon Ave. than to and from Sherman Ave.
That is a question that will have to be answered, balancing the street traffic that is now on that section of Lloyd by the park and the Pvblic Library branch that is on the inside corner of the corridor turn at Sherman v. those houses and small businesses that will have to be relocated. It's where such planners earn their pay.
I like the idea in concept, but I think it would be a non-starter.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2023, 08:23:37 PM
^^^ I like that idea but perhaps State St., Martin Dr., and Vliet St. should at grade intersections to better connect the two neighborhoods. They could also remove Alois st. since the new boulevard would serve that traffic anyways. I'd keep everything south of State St including the RR tracks(obviously) grade separated and controlled access.
I'd also propose a roundabout at Sherman BLVD.
Is there purple rectangle over North Ave a proposed bridge?
The purple rectangle is a proposed bridge. I did that because of the angle of the shift and North Ave is a busy enough city street.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 12, 2023, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2023, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 12, 2023, 11:23:13 AM
Destruction of neighborhoods is completely off the table, especially for a stub freeway that doesn't go anywhere. And there would probably still be more traffic to and from Lisbon Ave. than to and from Sherman Ave.
That is a question that will have to be answered, balancing the street traffic that is now on that section of Lloyd by the park and the Pvblic Library branch that is on the inside corner of the corridor turn at Sherman v. those houses and small businesses that will have to be relocated. It's where such planners earn their pay.
I like the idea in concept, but I think it would be a non-starter.
The reason I thought about tying the north end of the current Stadium Frwy to Sherman Blvd is because if you go north on Sherman, it already is a 4 lane boulevard with a couple of interchanges, one at Silver Spring and the other tying into Teutonia Ave. The street really does act more like a stroad north of Lisbon Ave. And with the continuation south of Miller Park down to Loomis Rd, this would be a good alternate to get north and south in Milwaukee County.
Now that being said, I know that this very likely will not get any legs because of the loss of homes and businesses to connect the 2 roadways.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 20, 2023, 02:29:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 12, 2023, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2023, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 12, 2023, 11:23:13 AM
Destruction of neighborhoods is completely off the table, especially for a stub freeway that doesn't go anywhere. And there would probably still be more traffic to and from Lisbon Ave. than to and from Sherman Ave.
That is a question that will have to be answered, balancing the street traffic that is now on that section of Lloyd by the park and the Pvblic Library branch that is on the inside corner of the corridor turn at Sherman v. those houses and small businesses that will have to be relocated. It's where such planners earn their pay.
I like the idea in concept, but I think it would be a non-starter.
The reason I thought about tying the north end of the current Stadium Frwy to Sherman Blvd is because if you go north on Sherman, it already is a 4 lane boulevard with a couple of interchanges, one at Silver Spring and the other tying into Teutonia Ave. The street really does act more like a stroad north of Lisbon Ave. And with the continuation south of Miller Park down to Loomis Rd, this would be a good alternate to get north and south in Milwaukee County.
Now that being said, I know that this very likely will not get any legs because of the loss of homes and businesses to connect the 2 roadways.
I would definitely say no to a direct connection with Sherman Blvd. Sherman is full of crazy, reckless drivers, and creating more of a direct connection to a freeway is a bad idea. I like the Sherman/Lloyd/WI 175 setup as is.
Besides, most of the Stadium Freeway traffic follows wherever WI 175 (former US 41) goes., Which would be the opposite direction with Lisbon and Appleton.
BTW - I have driven through this area more times and for more years than I can possibly count. I know it very well.
So you don't make logical road connections because a road is full of "crazy drivers?" 🤪🤪🤪
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 20, 2023, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 20, 2023, 02:29:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 12, 2023, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2023, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 12, 2023, 11:23:13 AM
Destruction of neighborhoods is completely off the table, especially for a stub freeway that doesn't go anywhere. And there would probably still be more traffic to and from Lisbon Ave. than to and from Sherman Ave.
That is a question that will have to be answered, balancing the street traffic that is now on that section of Lloyd by the park and the Pvblic Library branch that is on the inside corner of the corridor turn at Sherman v. those houses and small businesses that will have to be relocated. It's where such planners earn their pay.
I like the idea in concept, but I think it would be a non-starter.
The reason I thought about tying the north end of the current Stadium Frwy to Sherman Blvd is because if you go north on Sherman, it already is a 4 lane boulevard with a couple of interchanges, one at Silver Spring and the other tying into Teutonia Ave. The street really does act more like a stroad north of Lisbon Ave. And with the continuation south of Miller Park down to Loomis Rd, this would be a good alternate to get north and south in Milwaukee County.
Now that being said, I know that this very likely will not get any legs because of the loss of homes and businesses to connect the 2 roadways.
I would definitely say no to a direct connection with Sherman Blvd. Sherman is full of crazy, reckless drivers, and creating more of a direct connection to a freeway is a bad idea. I like the Sherman/Lloyd/WI 175 setup as is.
Besides, most of the Stadium Freeway traffic follows wherever WI 175 (former US 41) goes., Which would be the opposite direction with Lisbon and Appleton.
BTW - I have driven through this area more times and for more years than I can possibly count. I know it very well.
And Lisbon, Appleton and Fond du Lac Aves don't have their share of crazy drivers? I too am quite familiar with the area. My ex is in West Allis. 76th St and Lincoln Ave have their crazy drivers too.
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 20, 2023, 07:04:09 PM
Besides, most of the Stadium Freeway traffic follows wherever WI 175 (former US 41) goes., Which would be the opposite direction with Lisbon and Appleton.
That's true, but not by much. As I mentioned earlier, 55% of the traffic continues on WI 175 with 45% exiting/entering at Lloyd, per WisDOT AADT numbers.
That being said, I don't expect the ultimate plan to directly feed Sherman into the new boulevard. That's going to take more r/w and the whole point of this endeavor is to liberate existing r/w for other uses. Traffic going between Sherman and WI 175 will likely continue to have to 'dogleg' over on Lloyd. And I think that will be just fine.
We used to use this freeway stub all the time when traveling between grandparents houses back when they were all alive. It's always been a ghost town and I have every expectation the downgrade will function quite well, whatever actual form it takes.