See Costs, New Details For 794 Replacement Options
Boulevard option could produce $16 million in annual property tax revenue.
Boulevard option could produce $16 million in annual property tax revenue. Back to the full article.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be an Urban Milwaukee member to leave a comment. Membership, which includes a host of perks, including an ad-free website, tickets to marquee events like Summerfest, the Wisconsin State Fair and the Florentine Opera, a better photo browser and access to members-only, behind-the-scenes tours, starts at $9/month. Learn more.
If you are an existing member, sign-in to leave a comment.
Have questions? Need to report an error? Contact Us
The state wants to do a rebuild weather in kind or slim. You can totally tell from their subtle corralling of benign concerns into a pen of overt doubt. The idea of a surface street option turns the junk science they do with traffic studies on its head. A boulevard option would look better and I don’t doubt that land would get developed quickly, especially near the Milwaukee market. Will the rents be high? Probably. Would they add to the housing stock we desperately need, yes. Convenience for the southern suburb commuters shouldn’t come at a cost to Milwaukee.
Does the DOT look into or give any weight to air and noise pollution? Less pollution could offset some of the fatalities from increased crashes.
@B – That would come up in the final environmental impact statement. I don’t see it in the data presented yesterday. Nor is the severity of crash data included (there are of course unusual situations where things like roundabouts are known to generate more crashes but of a less severe variety than the t-bone crashes they eliminate)
I love the idea of the freeway removal, but even if the boulevard option can fit all the traffic (which I think it can), the traffic from the lift bridge would be absurd. I can imagine a backup all the way to Marquette every time it needs to lift. The lift is also likely where a large amount of the removal cost could be from; lift bridges are not cheap.
@WPDZ federal law allows the bridges to stay closed for two hours during morning and evening rush hour.
I was not able to attend the presentation and I regret it. It seems that the DOT has been against the boulevard option from the get go. This city is too dependent on automobiles and the discussion reflects that. We need to start promoting more and better public transportation and using it. Hello suburbanites. I’m not alone in finding the cost projection for the boulevard option preposterous.
Will Urban Milwaukee do some follow up? How can the rebuild as-is be less than the boulevard option???
Is the rebuild as is option reusing existing piers etc.???
It would seem that none of the above comment authors use this strech of 794 on a daily basis. This highway serves more than the south suburbs ( Bay View is a part of the city and generates tax revenue as well) and I’m a bit tired of these elitest views that put Downtown above anywhere else in the city. If you don’t like cars then all of this wonderful potential development should occur on the existing surface lots that are dead zones Downtown.
It would have been great if people had the foresight 80 years ago to save the interurban trains so we didn’t need freeways but that opportunity is long gone.
@PantherU I did not know that, thank you for sharing! That could be huge for the removal option
….and I don’t doubt that land would get developed quickly, especially near the Milwaukee market.
A more logical assumption is that any new available parcels will become parking lots.
If there was some pent up demand from developers seeking land to develop, the developers would have already acquired and constructed their projects on the currently existing parking lots in the vicinity of the MPM.