The Hoan Bridge as seen from the US Bank Center top floor.

Last week, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) gave a presentation regarding the possibility of adding a bike trail on the Hoan Bridge.  The DOT laid out five potential alternatives, that covered a wide range of costs, and potential impacts such as traffic congestion.

The cheapest option, the $9.4 million version known as Alternative 1A, was clearly the concept on the minds of supporters, because it was the most affordable and realistic of the designs.  But the WisDOT report gave this option a ‘level of service’ rating (LOS) of F, likely ruling it out as a viable option in the eyes of WisDOT.   When WisDOT talks ‘level of service’ they are determining the level of traffic congestion, which is measured by the density of traffic and traffic flow, or speed.  I’m not a traffic engineer, but this ‘level of service’ determination by WisDOT seemed to come to an odd conclusion, and was made using flawed, and even conflicting, assumptions.

In this case, the level of service F grade, as a result of the trail’s construction and lane removal, is predicted to occur in 25 years, for one hour a day, and will result in traffic speeds dropping.  According to the report, today normal traffic operation on the bridge is actually speeding.  In 25 years?  For one hour a day, speeds are projected to drop to 47 mph on the bridge segment while still allowing speeds of up to 54 mph on the ramps.  In fact, the two-lane design will still allow for people to speed across the entire bridge during the vast majority of the day, and on the ramps during rush hour.  Certainly designing any road for speeding should get an F rating, but that’s not the argument here, as WisDOT rates this an F because they assume a free flowing traffic speed of 60 MPH. Their assumption is that driving 10 mph over the speed limit is the ideal operational state for the bridge.  No doubt an odd conclusion. The F grade indicates impending carmageddon, but in reality is merely a projection that people will have to drive near the speed limit for one hour a day.

It also appears the projections are based on flawed assumptions.  In their report, WisDOT makes the assumption, not an actual measurement, that “From this set of historic traffic pattern data it can be concluded that the current weekday traffic volume on the Hoan Bridge, without the current maintenance lane closure impact on traffic, is 48,200 vpd (vehicles per day).”  Essentially, WisDOT is estimating that 12% (6,400 vpd) of the traffic on the Hoan Bridge is currently being diverted to other roads due to lane closures for construction.  While this assumption seems somewhat out of line when compared to recent traffic counts (for example 2010 where the count was 42,900 vpd), this isn’t the only issue with this assumption.  The report makes another assumption, contrary to this one.

“The capacity analysis does not assume any traffic diversion to other routes that could result from a permanent capacity constrained 2-lane condition to accommodate a shared-use path on the Hoan Bridge.”   In other words, when predicting the future congestion levels for design 1A, WisDOT makes the projections based on the three lanes of travel, and ignores the likely possibility of permanent traffic diversion due to a permanent lane reduction (that the 12% they estimate is diverted currently would stay diverted).  The idea that traffic will divert for construction, but not for a permanent lane reduction is questionable, if not contradictory, and calls into question all of the future traffic projections.

Remember that just a few years ago, WisDOT released a document considering replacing the Hoan Bridge with surface level bridges.

Our hope is that WisDOT re-evaluates the traffic projections based on actual traffic counts, and proceeds with Alternative 1A.

Rendering of the Milwaukee Streetcar vehicle.

This week there are two important public meetings regarding the future of Milwaukee’s built environment.

Today there will be a meeting hosted by the Department of Transportation which will give residents a chance to ask questions and share opinions about the proposal to add a bike and pedestrian lane on the Daniel Hoan Memorial Bridge.  The meeting will be held in the DOT offices, 1001 W. St. Paul Ave., and starts at 5 p.m. The DOT planners presentation will begin at 5:15.

On Wednesday the 16th, the Federal Government will hold a Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Milwaukee Streetcar Project.  The meeting will be held in the Frontier Airlines Center, 410 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee First Floor, Room 101A-D (closest entrance is 4th Street & Wisconsin Avenue) and starts at 5:30 p.m.  The formal presentation will begin at 6:00 pm.

UrbanMilwaukee.com has long supported both of these projects (Bike the Hoan / Milwaukee Streetcar Project), and hopes the public comes out to show their support for these improvements to Milwaukee.

Riding Over the Hoan Looks Tough - Photo by Brian Jacobson, courtesy of ThirdCoast Digest

Should the Hoan Bridge have a bike and pedestrian path or not?  According to comment section of the Journal Sentinel it appears that there are numerous ‘reasons’ why a bike lane should not be built on the Hoan Bridge, but are they really valid?

• It will be too windy, bicyclists will be blown off the bridge.
• The climb is too difficult for most bicyclists.
• It will be too dangerous.
• It will make automobile traffic congestion worse.
• It is illegal to have a bike lane on an Interstate.
• Nobody will use it during the winter.
• It will cost too much.

Certainly, wind impacts bicyclists ability to ride, but this is not a problem unique to the Hoan Bridge in Milwaukee.  In fact people walk and bike over the Brooklyn Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge regularly, so it seems the wind issue can be managed or is simply a lot of hot air.  Additionally, it should be noted that this past summer 7,000 bicyclists road over the Hoan, and not one of them was blown off.

From the ground the Hoan Bridge certainly looks like it would be a difficult climb, but again this past summer 7,000 bicyclists of all ages, including children, riding a wide range of bicycles, and of  all skill levels rode right on over it.  As one of those bicyclists, I can tell you it is not a difficult climb, in fact it is not nearly as difficult a climb as numerous of the hills located around Milwaukee that people bike over regularly.

Concerns over the safety of bicyclists are often raised, and safety should of course be a significant concern.  However, the design would not to simply paint a white stripe on the Interstate and designate a section for bicyclists.  The design would include concrete walls separating bicycle traffic from automobile traffic.  This separation would keep pedestrians and bicyclists out of automobile lanes, and of course keep automobiles out of the path, making it perfectly safe.

Some people, and one Milwaukee County Supervisor in particular, fear that removing an automobile lane would cause traffic backups and congestion.  The truth is the bridge carries just 40,000 cars a day, barely enough for it to qualify for Interstate status, and far from a two-lane highway’s capacity.  In fact the bridge likely never hits peak traffic levels, and it is also likely that the UPAF ride was among the most highly utilized couple of hours in the bridge’s history.  Further, on either end of the bridge travel lanes drop to two-lanes negating much of the value of the additional lane.  Finally, there have been numerous times when these lanes have been closed (as they are now) and traffic didn’t backup.  To make this perfectly clear, Dave Schlabowske took some videos on multiple days showing how traffic flows fine, during rush hour, without the additional traffic lane that would be removed for the bike trail.

Although, it may seem on its surface that bicyclists shouldn’t be on Interstates, the reality is that bicyclists are allowed on Interstates unless otherwise posted, which often enough individual states decided to post a restriction.  But, in the case of federally funded bridges it is actually the case that bicycle and pedestrian considerations are required by the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in Title 23—Highways, Title 49—Transportation, and Title 42—The Public Health and Welfare.  Additionally, there are examples such as Interstate 90 in Seattle which currently has a bike lane on it, with few or no issues.

There is no doubt that during the winter bicycle traffic will drop off.  But winter isn’t twelve months of the year, and bicycling isn’t a summer only activity.  Further, people have no issue with other outdoor winter activities including skiing, sledding, or ice skating, and every year more and more year-round bike commuters are entering our roads, myself included.

The most serious of these ‘issues’ revolves around cost.  Certainly, if the new bike trail is to cost $100 million it maybe shouldn’t be built, but if it is a small portion of a $300 million re-decking project, it is worth the cost.

There are plenty of valid reasons to build the bike lane, including enhanced tourism, healthy living, improved air quality, congestion reduction, and improved connectivity to name just a few.  So enough with the excuses already, add the bike lane to the Hoan Bridge.

Milwaukee Intermodal Station Train Shed Rendering

The second phase of the redevelopment of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station will begin next month.  The $18 million project, which has been in the works since as early as 2005, will be a significant, long overdue, upgrade to the more than forty-year-old train shed.  The driving factors behind the project is to bring the train shed into ADA, fire, and Homeland Security compliance as well as to match the train shed to the rest of the facility.

Although this project is not part of the City of Milwaukee’s oversight, at the September 1st, 2010 meeting of the Milwaukee Common Council Alderman Dudzik brought a resolution forward that had it been approved would have requested the state delay the project until after the gubernatorial race.  Alderman Bauman responded to Alderman Dudzik’s resolution, by explaining that since 1965 the train shed hasn’t seen an upgrade of much significance.  He pointed out the structure has “rusting steel members”, “cracked and broken platform areas”, and went on to say that “any reasonable person would agree this facility is suffering from deferred maintenance.”  Dudzik’s measure was soundly defeated by a vote of 13 No’s, 1 Yes, and 1 Excused.

Below is a Gallery of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station Train Shed Redevelopment Renderings

The Setup

Before considering the merits of either proposal, it’s important to understand why and how the debate started in the first place. On August 22nd, 2008, The Business Journal of Milwaukee floated a trial balloon for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) quoting Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi discussing the feasibility of tearing down the bridge.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was quick to follow with more attention to the issue, including react quotes from south side politicians.

Why did WisDOT broach the issue in such a way? Proposing eliminating a part of the interstate system isn’t exactly business as usual for WisDOT.  The department has lead a $810 million reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange, is in process spending $1.9 billion expanding and rebuilding I-94 to the state line, and is lining up plans to expand the Zoo Interchange at a potential cost of $2.3 billion.  Par for the course for WisDOT would be expanding the capacity of the bridge, adding off-ramps, and spending more than the project before. Eliminating a section of a federally-designated Interstate highway just isn’t a plan that would likely emerge from WisDOT, let alone one that they would float as a trial balloon.

The Hoan Bridge as seen from the US Bank Center top floor. The bridge itself is rather narrow, but it's the ramps at the end that consume all the space.

So where did the discussion truly originate?  The United States Department of Transportation.  The only logical scenario is that the federal transportation department has informed WisDOT that they wish to remove the federal designation from the bridge. One would presume that the facts that the bridge needs to be redecked and that interstate-level federal support won’t be available to financially support the redecking would spur one into proposing different ideas that would reduce the total lifetime cost of the highway.  If the federal government really is looking to remove the designation, WisDOT’s search for options seems rational.

Why would the U.S. DOT’s Federal Highway Administration look to remove that interstate designation?  Perhaps because traffic counts are too low at 40,000 vehicles per day.  Maybe because they’re looking to remove spurs as a way to save money.  It’s possible that the FHWA is merely looking to reduce the total mileage of the system as a way to save money, especially with sections that are due to be reconstructed soon.  It’s also possible that Wisconsin, by funding the Lake Park Highway has shown a willingness to fund the stub, and the FHWA is just looking to save money by giving Wisconsin the rest of the stretch from the Marquette Interchange. I don’t have an exact answer, but all signs point to a behind-the-scenes force prompting WisDOT’s action on the Hoan Bridge.

How is WisDOT handling this?  It would appear they’re content to let groups in Milwaukee fight it out, perhaps in hopes of raising some funds for any necessary work from the city of Milwaukee in TIF dollars or another form.  They’ve committed to studying the process, commissioning HNTB to conduct the study.

What Could Be Gained?

Assuming that the bridge will lose its interstate status regardless of which action is picked locally, there is a lot that could be gained by more sensible planning of the southside connection.  The plans released by HNTB indicating a potential for billions of dollars in real estate development are clearly an over exaggeration.  When examining the Hoan Bridge footprint, it’s pretty clear that the south end of the bridge in Bay View isn’t ripe for any form of development, nor certainly is Jones Island.  And while Walker’s Point has seen a proposal or two as of late (Rivianna being the best example), the odds of a large amount of development occurring in all of Walker’s Point in the ten to twenty years are relatively slim.  Sure Bay View and Walker’s Point will see development happen, but reconfiguring the bridge to better connect with either neighborhood will do little to help that at this point in time.  There is one area where reconfiguration of the highway could yield large gains.

Reconfiguring the North End of the Hoan Bridge

The north end of Interstate 794 as it turns to head west towards the Marquette Interchange occupies some of the most expensive real estate in the city.  Development on the north end of the bridge hasn’t been inhibited as much by the bridge itself as it by the overbuilt ramps that are part of the partially completed Lake Interchange that was designed when the Lake Freeway was planned to continue up the lakefront and connect with the Park East Freeway.

The Lake Interchange simply isn’t needed anymore (nor was it ever), and a solution that encompasses the needs of southside commuters and Milwaukee.  The Third Ward and East Town contain undoubtedly the most expensive office space in the city.  It’s no wonder that residents to the south want to protect the Hoan, it ensures access to the highest paying jobs in the city outside of Miller Park and the Bradley Center.  It’s time to look at reconfiguring the bridge as a way to connect residents to those jobs (and to the countless nearby cultural amenities), and as a way to grow the availability of jobs and amenities at the north end of the Hoan.

The red-framed land is the land that would made available for redevelopment as a result of the bridge reconfiguration. The blue illustrates the street-level boulevard that would replace the elevated freeway.

How can that be done?  Simply land the bridge earlier.  Currently the bridge comes down to ground level at Michigan Street.  If possible from an engineering perspective, leaving the iconic, existing bridge in place and dropping the ramp at a faster rate would yield these savings without the sacrifice of any buildings or stages at the Maier Festival Park.  It would likewise not noticeably lengthen the southside to downtown commute.  Drivers that use the Hoan would still have quick access to downtown over largely the same bridge, but would enter a reconfigured street grid that would diffuse them to their downtown destination.

Lowering Interstate 794 from the Milwaukee River to the east with a smooth-flowing street-level boulevard would finally unite East Town with the Third Ward.  This would open the land inbetween to development with stunning lake views, and logically unite the Milwaukee Art Museum and Discovery World with the boutique-laden Third Ward.  Furthermore, building an lower and more attractive bridge would further encourage development near the western reclaimed lane, which unlike the other reclaimed land would be deprived of a lakeview.  Depending on how far south the Hoan Bridge can be landed, up to 500,00 square feet of land could be opened for development.  Chicago Street probably represents the most opportunistic position, with St. Paul Avenue being the easiest position outside of a reconfigured Michigan St.

What About the Park East Issues?

The Hoan Bridge as it comes into downtown, as seen from the Chase Tower. The green lines indicate the massing of a new street-level boulevard, while the blue lines reflect the current space consumed by the elevated freeway. The red line shows a reconfigured trajectory towards the ground.

This land is far more valuable than the reclaimed land from the Park East Freeway based on location alone.  It’s closer to the lake, and inbetween two economically healthy neighborhoods.  To compare the potential of a development like this to the Park East is borderline apples to oranges.  Projects like the canceled Palomar hotel and condo development would certainly happen in the land made available between the Third Ward and East Town, likely without any public financial assistance.  One 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.

What’s The Result?

At the end of the day, as the above illustration shows, access is still ensured to downtown via 794 and the Hoan Bridge.  Provided the configuration can be made to work, the iconic bridge that people have come to know and love is preserved, and it’s still very easy to get from the southern suburbs and Bay View into downtown.  Nothing that prevents access from the southside to downtown.  Worst-case scenario is a slightly lower Hoan that maintains the same look and feel as the previous bridge, yet comes to the ground quicker than the current bridge.  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.  The plan blends the desires of the Save the Hoan coalition and Alderman Robert Bauman.  The benefit?  More than 500,000 square feet of new land for development, and a more attractive and interconnected lakefront. Nothing to sneeze at when it comes to developing a healthier Milwaukee.

The release indicates positions we have advocated for before, including the need for the bridge to better interact with the city at its northern terminus at Clybourn and Lincoln Memorial Drive.

One should not hold out hope that the city gets everything it asks for though.  As evidence of how little influence they city may have in the issue, Mayor Barrett and Common Council President Hines were mere attendees at the Marquette Interchange ribbon cutting.  They stood among the crowd, while Governor Doyle and Transportation Secretary Busalacchi unveiled their $800 million interchange.  There might not be better symbolism for highway building than that.  The city can yell all it wants, but will the state listen?

When

Bridge reconstruction is expected to be completed in 2013.  The timeframe for such a redevelopment is relatively fast.

Where

The entire structure is in need of serious maintenance in the form of a redecking.  Running from the eastern half of Interstate 794 downtown to the south end of the bridge where it touches down in Bay View.

Who Uses It

The bridge serves primarily Bay View, St. Francis, and other southside residents looking to enter downtown and nearby neighborhoods.  It likewise provides access for individuals downtown looking to get to the airport.

Who Builds It

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation will award and manage contracts for bridge reconstruction.  The City of Milwaukee is not the project manager by any means.

Cost

Simply rebuilding the bridge as is was estimated at $200 million, and some sort of rebuild is viewed as necessary for safety reasons.  A considerable amount of money is going to need to be spent, even just to maintain the status quo.

Bauman’s Proposed Principles

Alderman Bauman’s press release revealed a series of principles to be introduced to the full Common Council on July 7th.

• The bridge and its approaches must use the existing right-of-way and substantially the same footprint.
• The bridge’s approaches must remain elevated over all land uses currently beneath the approaches, including but not limited to the Port of Milwaukee, MMSD and the Maier festival park.
• Any moveable bridge spans must have sufficient clearance over the (average) water level to minimize bridge openings for non-commercial vessels.
• Bridge openings must be limited to non-peak traffic periods, except in emergencies.
• The bridge and its approaches must accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
• The bridge and its approaches must be limited to two travel lanes and one distress lane, bicycle lane and pedestrian sidewalk in each direction.
• The lake shore interchange must be eliminated and replaced by an at-grade intersection or roundabout in the approximate location of Clybourn Street and Lincoln Memorial Drive.
• All new or reconstructed structures must be designed with lighting and architectural elements developed in consultation with the City of Milwaukee.

Conclusion

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the completely elevated bridge could be rebuilt in a fashion much more respectful to the city, that doesn’t impair motorists’ ability to enter downtown.  Drivers looking to enter downtown might actually have a better experience being dropped to street-level faster (the street grid gives options) at the north end of the bridge.  Also, while much of the land over which the bridge crosses isn’t developable, the land at the north end of the bridge holds a lot of potential.  A bridge that better interacts with the city could pay dividends in the form of a healthier neighborhood and increased tax base.

Cost is something to consider, and dropping the bridge to an intersection at the north end would likely mean the loss of the Interstate designation and some amount of federal funding.  That isn’t a reason not to do a highway rebuild though, as the state has shown by spending $400 million rebuilding Highway 26 from Janesville to Watertown, which includes the addition of by-passes around towns smaller than the Bay View neighborhood.

The site selected for the solar power plant is a heavily contaminated brownfield on Chicago’s south side.  The site has been unused for 30 years, and even after remediation wouldn’t be suitable for recreational use.  Judging from other reports, all that stands between the plan and its implementation is the approval of a $48 million stimulus loan from the U.S Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program Office to cover up to 80% of the project costs.

This 10-megawatt solar photovoltaic (PV) facility, featuring 32,800 solar panels that will produce enough clean energy to fulfill the annual requirements of 1,200 to 1,500 homes, will displace approximately 31.2 million pounds of greenhouse emissions annually (the equivalent of taking more than 2,500 cars off the road or planting more than 3,200 acres of forest).

View Chicago Solar Power Plant in a larger map

Also of interest, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Thomas Content has a good rundown of what progress has been made regarding wind power in Wisconsin, and what obstacles are holding its development.  From a high level things appear pretty good…

By many accounts it was a banner year for the state. Record development of wind power took place, with the opening of four large wind-power projects by companies including We Energies, Invenergy and Wisconsin Power & Light Co.

Eight times as much wind power is being generated today as there was a little more than a year ago. But electricity from the wind still accounts for only about 5% of the state’s power supply.

But there are significant challenges.  A couple key takeaways from the article…

• State Senator Jeff Plale (D-Milwaukee) and State Representative Jim Soletski (D-Green Bay) are lead sponsors of a bill to set up uniform siting standards for all wind farms that would be built in the state.  To put things in perspective, the last project that was approved by a local government happened in March of 2007.
• The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has been difficult to work with in order to obtain permits to move the parts throughout Wisconsin.  According to Port of Milwaukee marketing director Betty Nowak this has led to an direct decrease in the volume of wind-power parts coming through the port.  These issues have since been resolved. I would guess this is why WisDOT has been so feverishly expanding freeways around Milwaukee ( for the Zoo Interchange, and for I-94 to the state line), but judging by how Bucryus and Joy Global continue to produce massive mining equipment in Milwaukee, this can’t be the case.
• Wisconsin is behind marketing itself to wind power companies.

How does all of this affect Milwaukee? Besides the obvious change to a more sustainable of source of power, which will result in cleaner air for Milwaukee residents, there are numerous other pieces to this puzzle.  One already mentioned is the use of the port, a higher port utilization means more jobs.  On top of that, Wisconsin has for a long-time been involved in the manufacturing supply chain.  Despite that an incredible number of those jobs are gone for one reason or another, the capacity for such production still exists.  With the size and timing of such projects creating a rather large incentive to make the parts locally, Wisconsin and Milwaukee in particularly could benefit from the increased use of wind turbines for power.

The development of an urban solar power plant is something to also watch closely.  If it works on a Chicago brownfield, I can imagine it would work equally as well on a Milwaukee brownfield (or factory rooftop).

More money should have been spent on minimizing the impact the interchange and Interstate 794′s have in dividing the Third Ward from downtown.  This includes not only the obvious areas between East Town and the Third Ward near the Milwaukee Public Market, but the less obvious, but looming problem, the visually isolated Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

How could this be achieved?  Well, as mentioned previously, putting more lipstick on the pig ala better lighting under the interstate to encourage more pedestrian activity from one side to the other (and hopefully encourage more development).

As I said before…

The idea I like the most is the creation of a barrier between the streets and the parking lots with rotating public art from area students.  Mix that with upward shooting lights and more contemporary designed fixtures to achieve an experience under the freeway that is similar to walking along the Riverwalk.  Make the area as visually appealing as possible to reduce the negative impact the massive cement structure has on adjacent land.

WisDOT did seem to have some intention of doing something with the space under 794.  Hopefully they follow through with that, and do something other than generic surface parking lots and what they refer to as “architecturally-enhanced piers”.  The “architecturally-enhanced piers” (pictured blow) were seriously what’s mentioned on MChange.org as all it would take to make the area more appealing.

The other low-hanging fruit (concrete) is the removal of the temporary lanes separating the two portions of 794.  It appears in an effort to make the project come in under budget, WisDOT decided to just leave construction pieces at the site (a supposedly temporary concrete piece bigger than the Milwaukee Public Market).  Unfortunately, leaving the temporary lanes in place (pictured below) makes the space under the freeway completely dark, negating the “architecturally-enhanced piers”.

The lights on the Marquette Interchange are a good thing.  They make driving through downtown more noticeable (if the skyline was failing to do that already) and will probably help the image of the city.  My concern is just that WisDOT should be spending more attention to the visual effect the freeway has on the land bordering it in the city.  More lighting under the freeway would help.

Ironically, the happy motorists living in the suburbs seem to have an issue with $815,000 being spent on lights, but not on the $810,000,000 cost of the entire project.  Ironic?  We think so.  The entire project did cost 1,000 times as much as the lights.  Penny-wise, pound-foolish comes to mind.

In response to a series of questions and comments regarding transit options, Ms. Brown, from the Wisconsin DOT, responded that “transit is not considered as part of the construction of the interchange”.  Alderman Murphy expressed the committee’s belief that the Wisconsin DOT has ignored multi-modal options at the expense of the City of Milwaukee saying that “the way they (Wisconsin DOT) set up this planning they specifically excluded it”.  Wisconsin DOT staff repeatedly pointed to SEWRPC’s planning as their guiding direction and Ms. Brown reiterated “that (rail) is not an option given the schedule and time frame”.  Near the end of the meeting Alderman Bauman summed up the committee’s message to the Wisconsin DOT saying “carry back the message you don’t have any happy campers”.