The Chicago-Rockford-Madison-Milwaukee Megapolitan Watch Thread

[Kramerica]

Originally Posted by JPmaverick

I was relying on information from WisDOT and SEWRPC. According to the SEWRPC study, I-94 in Milwaukee County has been at capacity for nearly a decade and the Kenosha/Racine segment will "need" widening to accommodate future growth and traffic patters over the next 20 years. The state authorized reconstruction but widening was not included in the initial funding package. WisDOT has stated it will review the study to determine whether a request for widening is necessary.

Here's WisDOT's website about the I-94 North-South Corridor:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d2/i94/index.htm

SEWRPC a few years ago studied SE Wisconsin's future needs and they recommended that I-94 be expanded to eight lanes. The study serves as a guide to WisDOT as they reconstruct their freeway system, but not a mandate.

WisDOT is currently doing its own study of the corridor and getting plans ready for its reconstruction starting in 2009. This corridor was selected to be the next corridor to be reconstructed (out of all of SE Wisconsin) because:

1. It is very old and the base has worn out. Basically, each resurfacing lasts fewer years than the previous resurfacing. It is time for complete reconstruction.
2. This segment was politically more palatable than trying to figure out what to do with I-94 East-West in Milwaukee County, which is also in desperate physical need of reconstruction.
3. The unsafe interchanges with frontage roads and braided ramps.

While the corridor doesn't need capacity expansion as much as other corridors, it makes lots of sense to expand it now, while the whole thing is reconstructed, rather than rip up a lot of stuff in the future to expand then. Cost-wise, it is better for the taxpayer to do it all at once than twice. From the driver's perspective, it is better as well, with fewer construction seasons. And the expansion will help traffic move more smoothly, so it isn't like it is wasteful. In addition, the Illinois Tollway is expanding the Tri-State to within two miles of the state line (IL 173) next year, with plans to complete the additional lanes to the state line once Wisconsin does.

Here's a map of interest from 1965:

[Crankbaiter]

looking at that '65 map, the one sore spot is the lack of the Belt freeway.

[Kramerica]

Originally Posted by Crankbaiter

looking at that '65 map, the one sore spot is the lack of the Belt freeway.

If that would have been built, there wouldn't have been all the debate about upgrading HWY 164 in Pewaukee, Lisbon, and Washington County. The Belt Freeway would have taken the long-distance travellers off of HWY 164.

Here's the only part of the Belt Freeway that was actually constructed. This is Mequon Rd over US 41/45, and notice the extra bridge spans on each side. This location is where the Belt Freeway would have merged into US 41/45, so these extra bridge spans were for the ramps.



One sore spot that wasn't even on the 1965 map and is still needed today is the lack of a northern bypass; a way to get from I-43 to US 41.

IMO, it is too bad they didn't build the Park West Freeway, between I-43 and the Stadium Freeway. The land was cleared (and days away from the construction bids being let) and the damage already done. (witness the continued blight in that area) Having that freeway in place would have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars during the Marquette Interchange reconstruction. WisDOT had to keep the Marquette open, because there was no way around it. But if the Park West Freeway was there, the entire Marquette Interchange could have been shut down to rebuild it. It would have been a whole heck of a lot cheaper to close it, tear it down, and then build the new interchange. I think it would have cost half as much and taken half the time. That's $400 million and two years of motorist delays saved.

[mgk920]

WI 164 (north of I-43) is definitely one of the up-and-coming MAJOR highway weak spots in the state, simply because other better routes were not built. As that area continues to develop and densify (it won't be big-lot 'house in the country' sprawl central forever), there will be major amounts of wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding how to handle its traffic, especially in the areas of I-94 and US 41 as well as around and south of Waukesha. The relatively minor upgrades that were made to it over the last few years are NOTHING compared to what will have to be done in the future for it.

Yes, the Belt Freeway would have solved that problem, but it was to run through Brookfield and even back in the mid-1960s, there was enough money there to buy whatever legal assistance was needed to NIMBY it into oblivion. It never had a chance.

<sigh...>

I also agree with you on the Park West (as well as the Stadium between I-894 and 67th/FdL) - they should have been built.



Mike

[Crankbaiter]

Originally Posted by mgk920

WI 164 (north of I-43) is definitely one of the up-and-coming MAJOR highway weak spots in the state, simply because other better routes were not built. As that area continues to develop and densify (it won't be big-lot 'house in the country' sprawl central forever), there will be major amounts of wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding how to handle its traffic, especially in the areas of I-94 and US 41 as well as around and south of Waukesha. The relatively minor upgrades that were made to it over the last few years are NOTHING compared to what will have to be done in the future for it.

Yes, the Belt Freeway would have solved that problem, but it was to run through Brookfield and even back in the mid-1960s, there was enough money there to buy whatever legal assistance was needed to NIMBY it into oblivion. It never had a chance.

<sigh...>

I also agree with you on the Park West (as well as the Stadium between I-894 and 67th/FdL) - they should have been built.



Mike

Looking back on it, I grew up in New Berlin and that Belt Freeway would have gone through my 5/6th grade school (Cleveland Heights...I heard it is now gone anyway!). The "Belt" should have connected to I-43 as well. Avrum Lankum (sp?) of the Journal-Sentinal wrote an article about 5 years ago espousing the need for this road. I believe he called it I-143.

[Crankbaiter]

Last thought on this. It is funny how the interstates are skewed towards the south end of the MKE metro area, yet the growth of the metro area is very skewed west/north toward Wash/Ozauk/Jeff counties. Yes, there is growth south and southwest, but the bulk is N-W. Maybe the I system was merely built for the pleasure of Chicago folk to get to their cottages faster?

[Kramerica]

Originally Posted by Crankbaiter

Looking back on it, I grew up in New Berlin and that Belt Freeway would have gone through my 5/6th grade school (Cleveland Heights...I heard it is now gone anyway!).

The school isn't gone; they just renamed it because it was merged with another grade school. (Center, I think) It is now Poplar Creek. They also built a new grade school at the site of the old Center at National/Calhoun called Reagan. The kids that go there used to go to Prospect Hill, which is now closed.

[Don Omar]

I have a cousin that is a civil engineer who's company does a lot of contract work with the Wisconsin DOT. He has been saying that the state is looking at two options right now for expanding I-94 East, meaning from Milwaukee to Chicago. They either want to add another lane to the expressway or expand the rail service; however he is almost positive that they are going to side with improving rail service. Not really a shock given that the Metra is heading up to Kenosha anyway.

But the exciting stuff is that right now they are doing similar studies for I94 West between Milwaukee and Madison. Now, as you know, there is no regional rail service there now, but instead of adding another expressway lane from Wisconsin's capital to its largest city, there is a chance that the state will follow the model that is being set up between Milwaukee and Chicago.

Whether we could possibly see the state of Wisconsin producing something like New Jersey's NJTransit is something very far off. The investment into infrastructure will be overwhelming, but I think is a better alternative than frequently being stuck in traffic in the middle of rural Jefferson county. The fact that the state is conducting these types of studies is a good step forward (opposite of Milwaukee's proposed "shuttle" system).

[Jesse276]

I've heard estimates of the price of Milwaukee to Madison rail being the same as the cost to build one interchange. It wouldn't take as much as people think.

[Kramerica]

Originally Posted by Jesse276

I've heard estimates of the price of Milwaukee to Madison rail being the same as the cost to build one interchange. It wouldn't take as much as people think.

Well, what are the cost estimates for Milwaukee-Madison rail? Saying it would only cost as much as one interchange is not clear. The new Moorland Rd interchange at I-43 will cost $22 million. The Marquette Interchange project is costing $810 million. There's a big difference there. And that big cost gap could be used by both proponents and opponents of rail in a misleading way.

For the record, I'm in favor of both high-speed (at least for the US!) rail and an expanded freeway network.

[Jesse276]

Originally Posted by Kramerica

Well, what are the cost estimates for Milwaukee-Madison rail? Saying it would only cost as much as one interchange is not clear. The new Moorland Rd interchange at I-43 will cost $22 million. The Marquette Interchange project is costing $810 million. There's a big difference there. And that big cost gap could be used by both proponents and opponents of rail in a misleading way.

For the record, I'm in favor of both high-speed (at least for the US!) rail and an expanded freeway network.

Sorry, the number I remember was about $200 million dollars, I tried to find it again but couldn't. Instead I found this document from the WI-DOT that estimates the cost to be $176 million (year 2000 dollars) not including the cost for renovating or building stations.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/project...ea-execsum.pdf

[Kramerica]

Originally Posted by Jesse276

Sorry, the number I remember was about $200 million dollars, I tried to find it again but couldn't. Instead I found this document from the WI-DOT that estimates the cost to be $176 million (year 2000 dollars) not including the cost for renovating or building stations.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/project...ea-execsum.pdf

I found this on another thread:

According to Randy Wade, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) passenger rail manager, the cost of the rail, which would be an extension of Amtrak’s Hiawatha service between Milwaukee and Chicago, is now set at $316 million. About $227 million would go toward infrastructure, including the track, controls and running devices and $89 million toward new equipment.

[Jesse276]

Originally Posted by Kramerica

I found this on another thread:

Do you know the vintage of the estimate?

[Kramerica]

Originally Posted by Jesse276

Do you know the vintage of the estimate?

March of 2007 was the posting date.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...7&postcount=32

[JPmaverick]

Originally Posted by Kramerica

Here's WisDOT's website about the I-94 North-South Corridor:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d2/i94/index.htm

SEWRPC a few years ago studied SE Wisconsin's future needs and they recommended that I-94 be expanded to eight lanes. The study serves as a guide to WisDOT as they reconstruct their freeway system, but not a mandate.

WisDOT is currently doing its own study of the corridor and getting plans ready for its reconstruction starting in 2009. This corridor was selected to be the next corridor to be reconstructed (out of all of SE Wisconsin) because:

1. It is very old and the base has worn out. Basically, each resurfacing lasts fewer years than the previous resurfacing. It is time for complete reconstruction.
2. This segment was politically more palatable than trying to figure out what to do with I-94 East-West in Milwaukee County, which is also in desperate physical need of reconstruction.
3. The unsafe interchanges with frontage roads and braided ramps.

While the corridor doesn't need capacity expansion as much as other corridors, it makes lots of sense to expand it now, while the whole thing is reconstructed, rather than rip up a lot of stuff in the future to expand then. Cost-wise, it is better for the taxpayer to do it all at once than twice. From the driver's perspective, it is better as well, with fewer construction seasons. And the expansion will help traffic move more smoothly, so it isn't like it is wasteful. In addition, the Illinois Tollway is expanding the Tri-State to within two miles of the state line (IL 173) next year, with plans to complete the additional lanes to the state line once Wisconsin does.

The SEWRPC study may not be a mandate, however SEWRPC works in tandem with other state agencies - including WisDOT - on regional land-use and transportation plans. SEWRPC has a tremendous influence on local planning and, oftentimes, the state approval and budget processes.

Regarding the I-94 project, you are correct that WisDOT is conducting further studies, however the analyses are a continuation of, not separate from, the SEWRPC study. WisDOT adopted most of the recommendations. SEWRPC also called for widening and WisDOT in turn requested state funds to determine if capacity expansion is warranted.

Gov. Doyle proposed $181 million in his budget version (2007-09) for an environmental impact statement and cost-benefit analysis for capacity expansion. The funds will also cover costs for the preparation of the final design, real estate acquistion, preliminary work, and interchange reconstruction in Kenosha County.

[JPmaverick]

Originally Posted by Don Omar

I have a cousin that is a civil engineer who's company does a lot of contract work with the Wisconsin DOT. He has been saying that the state is looking at two options right now for expanding I-94 East, meaning from Milwaukee to Chicago. They either want to add another lane to the expressway or expand the rail service; however he is almost positive that they are going to side with improving rail service. Not really a shock given that the Metra is heading up to Kenosha anyway.

But the exciting stuff is that right now they are doing similar studies for I94 West between Milwaukee and Madison. Now, as you know, there is no regional rail service there now, but instead of adding another expressway lane from Wisconsin's capital to its largest city, there is a chance that the state will follow the model that is being set up between Milwaukee and Chicago.

Whether we could possibly see the state of Wisconsin producing something like New Jersey's NJTransit is something very far off. The investment into infrastructure will be overwhelming, but I think is a better alternative than frequently being stuck in traffic in the middle of rural Jefferson county. The fact that the state is conducting these types of studies is a good step forward (opposite of Milwaukee's proposed "shuttle" system).

WisDOT did not request funding in the 2007-09 budget for any further review of reconstruction or capacity expansion recommendations along I-94 between Milwaukee and Madison. SEWRPC advocates widening (as usual) but little movement has been made on the final study after it was completed in 2003. The state has prioritized an addition/expansion of passenger rail service in the corridor and has met key benchmarks. I posted an update last month on the Milwaukee-Madison project:

As part of the broader Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, the Milwaukee-Madison corridor has achieved key milestones. Wisconsin has finished all economic and environmental studies. The state purchased the tracks from Watertown to Madison and completed preliminary engineering. Sen. Kohl (D-WI) secured federal funds for infrastructure improvements. The state approved $48 million in bonding authority and Gov. Doyle proposed an additional $32 million to meet the state requirement for federal matching funds. Budget negotiations are ongoing. The state Legislature is also considering ratifying the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact. The project will move forward if the legislature approves the state funds and Congress appropriates the $320 million needed to begin construction.

Here is the link to the original post with info on KRM and other rail projects in the region: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=100

Originally Posted by Jesse276

Sorry, the number I remember was about $200 million dollars, I tried to find it again but couldn't. Instead I found this document from the WI-DOT that estimates the cost to be $176 million (year 2000 dollars) not including the cost for renovating or building stations.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/project...ea-execsum.pdf

The estimated price tag is $400 million.

[Kramerica]

Originally Posted by JPmaverick

The SEWRPC study may not be a mandate, however SEWRPC works in tandem with other state agencies - including WisDOT - on regional land-use and transportation plans. SEWRPC has a tremendous influence on local planning and, oftentimes, the state approval and budget processes.

Regarding the I-94 project, you are correct that WisDOT is conducting further studies, however the analyses are a continuation of, not separate from, the SEWRPC study. WisDOT adopted most of the recommendations. SEWRPC also called for widening and WisDOT in turn requested state funds to determine if capacity expansion is warranted.

Yes, SEWRPC does work closely with other agencies. And from an engineering standpoint, almost all agree that widening needs to occur. But the final decision on widening is not going to be an engineering decision; rather, it will be a political decision.

In the case of I-94 from the Airport to Illinois, I'd say that widening will take place. Racine and Kenosha counties are strongly in favor. In Milwaukee County, the politicians are split pretty much on a city/suburb line. In fact, the City of Milwaukee is virtually the only governing entity in the entire region that is opposed to widening. But since only a small part of this project is in the City of Milwaukee, it will probably go through.

Now, adding extra lanes to I-94 and I-43 through the city will be different animals altogether. I'd be surprised if the City doesn't win that battle. It is just too bad that by not getting the freeway expansion, we still won't be getting light rail or some other transit. I'm in favor of both expansion and a rail system, but at this point all signs point to neither. How sad.

Originally Posted by JPmaverick

WisDOT did not request funding in the 2007-09 budget for any further review of reconstruction or capacity expansion recommendations along I-94 between Milwaukee and Madison. SEWRPC advocates widening (as usual) but little movement has been made on the final study after it was completed in 2003.

SEWRPC only recommended widening to STH 67 in Oconomowoc. They did not address the need for expansion west of there, since their jurisdiction ends at the Jefferson County Line. I don't think there has been a recent study (past 7 years) of the I-94 Milwaukee-Madison corridor.

[Danillo]

Originally Posted by Kramerica

Yes, SEWRPC does work closely with other agencies. And from an engineering standpoint, almost all agree that widening needs to occur. But the final decision on widening is not going to be an engineering decision; rather, it will be a political decision.

Seems to me that what we need is a political decision here, not an engineering one, though a different political decision than what we are likely to get. While there has been a lot of good that's come from the Interstate Highway system, it seems we're at a point where the idea of expand, expand, expand had failed us.

Not that all road construction is bad, but I find it hard to believe that adding another lane on 94 is a solution for anything except inducing greater demand and putting us right back where we are today sooner rather than later. At some point the answer has to be, "how can we reduce demand?"

Obviously, that's a political change of will that has to come from multiple levels of government, and from communities who have grown in large part becuase of access to freeways. Still, I'm ill-at-ease about the idea of widening 94 at a time when, in my opinion, inducing further reliance on cars is against our economic, security, and environmental best interests.

[mgk920]

Originally Posted by Danillo

Seems to me that what we need is a political decision here, not an engineering one, though a different political decision than what we are likely to get. While there has been a lot of good that's come from the Interstate Highway system, it seems we're at a point where the idea of expand, expand, expand had failed us.

Not that all road construction is bad, but I find it hard to believe that adding another lane on 94 is a solution for anything except inducing greater demand and putting us right back where we are today sooner rather than later. At some point the answer has to be, "how can we reduce demand?"

Obviously, that's a political change of will that has to come from multiple levels of government, and from communities who have grown in large part becuase of access to freeways. Still, I'm ill-at-ease about the idea of widening 94 at a time when, in my opinion, inducing further reliance on cars is against our economic, security, and environmental best interests.

If you think that widening I-94 between Madison and Waukesha to six lanes might be something, WisDOT has several programmed and funded major upgrades planned along and near US 41 from the south edge of Oshkosh to a bit north of Green Bay - including adding a lane in each direction on two lengthy sections (WI 26 to Neenah and from Scheuring Rd to Lineville Rd), adding a lane each way to a chunk of US 10/WI 441 (US 41 SW to Oneida St in Appleton), full freeway upgrades to WI 29/32 from US 41 northwest to their split and majorly re-engineered US 41 interchanges at US 10/WI 441, WI 29/32 and I-43. Work is expected to begin in 2010 and the total cost may exceed $1G.



Mike

[D-res]

One thousand dollars?! Oh noes!