Comments on: Hoan Bridge: Tear Down Another Freeway in Milwaukee?

By: Jeff W

Jeff W — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:23:46 +0000

Why not extend 794 into Racine county, the city is 15 minutes from the freeway currently. the state has totally overlooked the lack of quick access from northern racine county into milwaukee. Hwy 32 and 38 are relics from the 1950’s. We deserve better than this and a slow train with many stops (KRM) leading to Milw is not the answer.

By: Tom Held

Tom Held — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:14:57 +0000

An excellent look at the topic, except that FHWA says it has NOT informed WisDOT that they wish to remove the federal designation form the bridge. That assumption in Mr. Jannene’s piece appears to be wrong.

And the 40,000 traffic count is actually higher than many sections of the federal highway system in Southeast Wisconsin.

Any change in the highway designation would be initiated by a DOT decision to replace the bridge with a less-robust structure and roadway. It would not be initiated by FHWA.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:44:06 +0000

Any movable bridge would have restrictions on when it could/couldn’t open to minimize disruption to users of the roadway. Currently the Hoan shuffles straight through the heart of MMSD and oil tanks in the area. At least running the road to the west of the port would give everyone a little distance.

As for the cost of a new bridge, the Knapp Street Bridge cost 11,000,000 in 2003 and anyone knows it’s cheaper to build a road on actual ground versus spanning the entire distance.

A redecked Hoan won’t contribute anything more, but a new lower bridge will open up views of the lake while creating access to huge areas of now hard to reach waterfront.

Why can’t we work this into a win-win? Why can’t we push for the state to rebuild a lower bridge and build an extension down to Ryan road at the same time? A few loud and angry people want to make this into an us vs them issue, but everyone in our corner of the state can benefit if we all come together.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:14:03 +0000

Consider the costs of installing a bascule bridge on a limited access highway for the commercial Port of Milwaukee. Similar to S Water Street, the at-grade Hoan would have to install some form of movable bridge to allow water traffic through. The immense size and low speeds of laker vessels moving into the port would require bridges up (and traffic stopped) for an average of 15 minutes a clip. Multiply this by 12 and that’s how much time would be lost for Hoan bridge commuters in and out of downtown. Never mind an at-grade commute through the MMSD cesspools.

By: The Hoan debate rages on | Metro Milwaukee Today

The Hoan debate rages on | Metro Milwaukee Today — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:59:19 +0000

[...] Jeramey Jannene offers up another unique perspective on the future of the former “Bridge to Nowhere”. Jannene’s perspective takes up [...]

By: Jarred

Jarred — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:26:47 +0000

I think the whole freeway spur should come down and be replaced w/ a street level boulevard. Keep in mind that Thirdward and Eastown/Downtown are also peoples homes and neighborhoods. Freeways don’t belong in neighborhoods or along a beautiful Lakefront. Replacing w/ a street level bridge & grid would likely only reduce the speed limit from 50-40mph and if there were rush hour restrictions on a lift bridge scenario southsiders commutes would be extended only slightly. Anyone wanting to bypass the street level bridge could always use 94/43 to get into downtown. The needs of the whole city should be considered, however, the needs of the 15K people living in the neighborhood surrounding the interchange should trump the 40K cars that bypass those neighborhoods each day.

I think the 794 spur should have come down as well making downtown a complete neighborhood and not really affecting any suburbanites commute more than 10 minutes. Dwtn bound traffic could be dropped btwn 11th-6th streets having a boulevard just like McKinley Ave take that traffic the rest of the way to the Lake Front/Downtown Business District.

This would make the downtown area more beautiful, livable, raise property values, attract more residents/business, etc…

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:14:26 +0000

[...The only traveler affected is the one looking to use Interstate 794 from the southern suburbs to head west to Waukesha and beyond, they would have to instead start their journey heading west to get on I-94, an extremely minor inconvenience...]

I think you underestimate how many travelers use 794 for precisely this reason. While there are a good deal of people working in downtown, it is the ease of commute from the south side out to the ‘burbs that I think has helped the south side flourish. ANd alternatives? 43/94 is already a zoo and the bypass is a laughable attempt to get west during the morning rush hour. 794 is as much a lifeline to outlying areas like Brookfield and Waukesha as it is to downtown.

By: matthew

matthew — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:16:15 +0000

I think that as far as reducing the land used by the bridge and it’s ramps; if it was built as a highway but was designed for it’s current and future traffic loads that the ramp length and curve radius’s would be reduced greatly while the lanes would become 2 in each direction so that even if it kept the same height, and same connections (which it seems is what the south-siders seem most concerned about) with the streetgrid and the freeway that we could open up half the land under the roadways for better development.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:32:52 +0000

Excellent article. The same case as the north interchange could be made for the south interchange as it is similar in age and the amount of land that it consumes. The popularity/feasibility of removing the south interchange would rely on the placement of the southside KRM stop (E Lincoln vs. E National Aves.) but the economic development potential near the Laker vessel, commercial activity at the Port of Milwaukee, the proposed Army Reserve site “Solar Village”, and the healthy nearby commercial districts bodes well for redevelopment similar to the north interchange. One issue at play is that an essential re-decking of the Hoan is approaching (10 years) and expensive (roughly $400 mil) while the redone interchanges look to be an additional $100-150 mil each and “cosmetic” from an engineer’s point of view. The engineers drafting the plan will have to be sold on the economic benefits and downstream impact with a convincing argument as their priorities lie in the cost of re-decking and maintenance.

By: Lakefront land sale | Lake Land and Lots

Lakefront land sale | Lake Land and Lots — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:28:28 +0000

[...] Posted August 17, 2009 at 11:19 am Hoan Bridge: Tear Down Another Freeway in Milwaukee? | Urban MilwaukeeOne of the same challenges that faces the Park East unfortunately rears its head with Milwaukee County being the land holder, but with a better plan from the start the City of Milwaukee Department of City Development can be put in charge of managing the land sales. … More than 500000 square feet of new land for development, and a more attractive and interconnected lakefront. Nothing to sneaze at when it comes to developing a healthier Milwaukee. Share and Enjoy: … read more… [...]