Milwaukee area freeways

[SEWIGuy]

It's a short, elevated freeway that is in need of costly maintenance and separates two Milwaukee neighborhoods from one another. It's plainly obvious why it is under discussion.

The river to the south also 'divides' the neighborhoods, maybe it should be covered/removed as well?  Could always split the flow with multiple pipes under the different streets[/semi sarcastic].

And the particularly section is part of a much greater corridor, unlike the Park East which didn't have another higher type road connecting to it on the east end.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

[thspfc]

"When we tore down the Park East, we only got a state-of-the-art arena and a whole district of new restaurants, apartments, and hotels out of it!"

[hobsini2]

Of the concepts submitted, I think that either Concept 6 with the freeway remaining or Concept 1 with the freeway removal are the best ways to go. Concept 6 Freeway opens up the most land for development while keeping the freeway.

Personally, I would like to see the freeway kept so that it can still be used as an alternate to I-94 heading south of Downtown. The Lake Pkwy is a good alternate. But imagine if this was a surface street and people where getting off of 94 because of an accident which does happen. That's way more traffic than surface streets can handle.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Interstate 794 Lake Interchange Stakeholder/Business Advisory Committee presentation is located here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/794lake/794LICPresentation.pdf. I have decided I would support either Alternative 5 or Alternative 6 of the Freeway Improvement Alternatives, since it would move the existing ramps to the right-hand side. As stated before, I strongly oppose freeway removal because I believe the existing freeway provides a needed connection to take traffic of of local surface streets, and provides seamless access from the rest of Milwaukee's freeway network to the Hoan Bridge and the Lake Parkway. I would not want traffic to have to pass through signaled surface streets to connect to the bridge and parkway, and also believe there is too much traffic on the east-west segment of 794 to warrant moving all traffic onto surface streets.

[thspfc]

The Interstate 794 Lake Interchange Stakeholder/Business Advisory Committee presentation is located here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/794lake/794LICPresentation.pdf. I have decided I would support either Alternative 5 or Alternative 6 of the Freeway Improvement Alternatives, since it would move the existing ramps to the right-hand side. As stated before, I strongly oppose freeway removal because I believe the existing freeway provides a needed connection to take traffic of of local surface streets, and provides seamless access from the rest of Milwaukee's freeway network to the Hoan Bridge and the Lake Parkway. I would not want traffic to have to pass through signaled surface streets to connect to the bridge and parkway, and also believe there is too much traffic on the east-west segment of 794 to warrant moving all traffic onto surface streets.

I think the streets that would suffer the most are the major E/W streets on the south side that connect 794 and 43/94 - Howard, Holt, Oklahoma, Lincoln. Traffic going to and from those areas would no longer use 794, but rather 43/94 down to one of those exits. Hoan Bridge traffic (42k AADT) would dump onto Lincoln Memorial, which would intersect with St. Paul and Clybourn. Seems like it would flow better if it was just Clybourn but whatever. Those intersections would definitely be congested, but other than that I don't think there would be many issues. Traffic headed from south Milwaukee to the west side of downtown would use 43, which I don't anticipate being an issue because 94 west of downtown and 43 north of downtown handle more traffic than 43/94 south of downtown, despite being older freeways designed to handle less than 43/94.

[SEWIGuy]

The Interstate 794 Lake Interchange Stakeholder/Business Advisory Committee presentation is located here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/se/794lake/794LICPresentation.pdf. I have decided I would support either Alternative 5 or Alternative 6 of the Freeway Improvement Alternatives, since it would move the existing ramps to the right-hand side. As stated before, I strongly oppose freeway removal because I believe the existing freeway provides a needed connection to take traffic of of local surface streets, and provides seamless access from the rest of Milwaukee's freeway network to the Hoan Bridge and the Lake Parkway. I would not want traffic to have to pass through signaled surface streets to connect to the bridge and parkway, and also believe there is too much traffic on the east-west segment of 794 to warrant moving all traffic onto surface streets.

I think the streets that would suffer the most are the major E/W streets on the south side that connect 794 and 43/94 - Howard, Holt, Oklahoma, Lincoln. Traffic going to and from those areas would no longer use 794, but rather 43/94 down to one of those exits. Hoan Bridge traffic (42k AADT) would dump onto Lincoln Memorial, which would intersect with St. Paul and Clybourn. Seems like it would flow better if it was just Clybourn but whatever. Those intersections would definitely be congested, but other than that I don't think there would be many issues. Traffic headed from south Milwaukee to the west side of downtown would use 43, which I don't anticipate being an issue because 94 west of downtown and 43 north of downtown handle more traffic than 43/94 south of downtown, despite being older freeways designed to handle less than 43/94.

Exactly. The doomsayers are exaggerating like they usually do.

[Revive 755]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

Which one is the bigger divider:  The river with relatively few crossing or the freeway which is quite easy to get under?

[thspfc]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

Which one is the bigger divider:  The river with relatively few crossing or the freeway which is quite easy to get under?

I'd say the one that requires crossing two busy signalized intersections at off-ramps, as well as possibly walking through a homeless encampment or at best a musty underpass riddled with trash.

And think about the impact that each have on the surrounding community. Freeways are loud, dirty, and ugly. (Well, I appreciate the aesthetic of good highway infastructure while driving, but while walking or cycling, not so much.) Rivers are quiet and look nice. I'm sure the Milwaukee River isn't squeaky clean, but it's a lot better for the enviornment than a freeway is.

[SEWIGuy]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

Which one is the bigger divider:  The river with relatively few crossing or the freeway which is quite easy to get under?

Comparing a natural river that drains the city with a man-made structure in need of significant maintenance is quite the stretch. The fact you are doubling-down on that talking point is...something.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

Which one is the bigger divider:  The river with relatively few crossing or the freeway which is quite easy to get under?

I'd say the one that requires crossing two busy signalized intersections at off-ramps, as well as possibly walking through a homeless encampment or at best a musty underpass riddled with trash.

And think about the impact that each have on the surrounding community. Freeways are loud, dirty, and ugly. (Well, I appreciate the aesthetic of good highway infastructure while driving, but while walking or cycling, not so much.) Rivers are quiet and look nice. I'm sure the Milwaukee River isn't squeaky clean, but it's a lot better for the enviornment than a freeway is.

Yep.

[skluth]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

Which one is the bigger divider:  The river with relatively few crossing or the freeway which is quite easy to get under?

The Milwaukee River is narrower than I-794 by quite a bit once freeway ramps are included. Not to mention you can actually walk safely and peacefully alongside the river. Rivers tend to bring neighborhoods together as a gathering point. There are also quite a few bridges used by people not in cars around downtown Milwaukee. You might actually notice the bridges if you get out of your car. The only thing freeways gather is cars looking to leave the area. Quite useful when your concert at Summerfest ends but that's about it.

[triplemultiplex]

I've already discussed the viability of the teardown option at length in this thread, so I won't go into it again. Suffice to say, I think it'll be fine if they go that route.

Looking at the two teardown concepts, that second one seems to have the Hoan Bridge coming down to street level rather abruptly.  Not sure if that'll work out.

Interesting that many of the rebuilt concepts have ramps feeding Cass Street instead of Lincoln Memorial Dr.  Gotta be a handful of folks who at the First Wisconsin Center US Bank Center that would appreciate that.

[hobsini2]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

Which one is the bigger divider:  The river with relatively few crossing or the freeway which is quite easy to get under?

Rivers tend to bring neighborhoods together as a gathering point.

You may want to Google the Milwaukee Bridge Wars. Now that is a fascinating history of the start of the city (cities at the time).

[skluth]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  Yeah, let's compare a man-made elevated freeway in need of repair to a river.  You know you don't have much of an argument when that's your comparison.

Which one is the bigger divider:  The river with relatively few crossing or the freeway which is quite easy to get under?

Rivers tend to bring neighborhoods together as a gathering point.

You may want to Google the Milwaukee Bridge Wars. Now that is a fascinating history of the start of the city (cities at the time).

I grew up in Wisconsin. The bridge wars were taught to us in grade school. While the streets laid out by Juneau and Kilbourn may not have aligned, both cities were defined by their accesses to the Milwaukee River.

[JoePCool14]

Taking a quick scan through the presentation, in terms of freeway improvement proposals, I like Concept 5 best. I think the freeway in some form needs to stay, and tightening the amount of space used seems like the best compromise. I continue to think it would be ridiculous to have blocks of surface road between the Marquette Interchange and the Hoan Bridge. That seems like a step backwards for connectivity. Having the freeway redundancy would also be useful. If Third Ward and Summerfest have been able to thrive even with 794 there, I don't see why it's necessary to remove the freeway.

If they had to choose a removal proposal, I prefer Proposal 2. I question the grades needed to accomplish that bridge connection to the Marquette Interchange though. But frankly, I don't like either of those proposals. The west leg and the south leg are connected by an acute angle. That just makes the connection even worse than it would need to be. I really think they could've done better with that, and maybe they will develop other alternatives if the removal opinion grows stronger.

For now, I strongly support a freeway rebuild. No to removal. I will be following this as the process continues.

[thspfc]

I think the freeway in some form needs to stay, and tightening the amount of space used seems like the best compromise. I continue to think it would be ridiculous to have blocks of surface road between the Marquette Interchange and the Hoan Bridge. That seems like a step backwards for connectivity. Having the freeway redundancy would also be useful. If Third Ward and Summerfest have been able to thrive even with 794 there, I don't see why it's necessary to remove the freeway.

" A step backwards for connectivity"  is just fine with me if it means improving the city as a whole.

Third Ward and Summerfest are indeed fine, but why can't we add a few more blocks' worth of thriving city?

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think removing freeways is necessary for a city to thrive. As long as money is invested to keep crime down, keep neighborhoods from deteriorating, and infrastructure is kept up to par, any city can thrive. It also doesn't hurt to improve mobility, although different cities have different needs.

[SEWIGuy]

I don't think removing freeways is necessary for a city to thrive. As long as money is invested to keep crime down, keep neighborhoods from deteriorating, and infrastructure is kept up to par, any city can thrive. It also doesn't hurt to improve mobility, although different cities have different needs.

Removing that particular freeway would help though.

[thspfc]

I don't think removing freeways is necessary for a city to thrive. As long as money is invested to keep crime down, keep neighborhoods from deteriorating, and infrastructure is kept up to par, any city can thrive. It also doesn't hurt to improve mobility, although different cities have different needs.

Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it wouldn't help at all.

[Henry]

For those who keep a copy of the MUTCD, this sign may look familiar to you:



But at the actual I-43/I-94 split, no such signs exist; in fact, the interchange is not at all what the sample sign may have implied. Plus, the control city is Madison for I-94 WB as expected, with no mention of Brookfield at all, and there's also another sign for the first exit off I-43 NB (Exit 72A/Michigan St/10th St). While I-94 does have an Exit 310, it's not marked for I-43 in the WB direction, but in the EB direction, I-43 NB is marked as Exit 310B; I-794 is Exit 310C on both directions. This reminds me a lot of the discussion about a similarly-mislabeled interchange in CT, and I though I'd bring this up for the uninformed.

[The Ghostbuster]

Instead of Brookfield, I would include Waukesha in addition to Madison on the sign. After all, Waukesha is larger than Brookfield.

[mgk920]

"West Suburbs"?




Mike

[TheHighwayMan3561]

As Froggie commented in the CT example thread, it's just a sample and people don't need to get burned up about this.

[triplemultiplex]

Brookfield as a control city... 


Brookfield: We have the fourth best mall in the area!

[peterj920]

About 10 years ago the SEWRPC recommended a 6 mile extension of Wis 794/Lake Parkway to Wis 100. It doesn't seem like anything has happened since it was pit in the 2035 comprehensive plan. Is all the momentum gone to have this built? Here's a link to the study, recommendation, and preferred alternative:

https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/mr/mr-201-lake-parkway-extension.pdf

[The Ghostbuster]

I would totally support an extension of the Lake Parkway (the extension would go past the house my paternal grandparents once lived in). However, given that the Lake Parkway extension was first proposed in 2010, and no movement has been made to plan, fund, and construct such an extension, it appears that it will lie dormant for a long time to come (it might even be dead).