Downtown Boulevard for I-794, Completing MARK Rail Plan Will Build City
Combined with gateway district for intermodal station, it could transform city's economy.
Milwaukee Intermodal Station. Photo by Jeramey Jannene.
Strategic development of I-794 and the Milwaukee Area-Racine-Kenosha (MARK) passenger rail project can transform Milwaukee’s economy for decades. But only if we plan for it. In contrast, WisDOT’s 794 “improvement,’’ as some call it, actually stalls growth and forgoes $2 billion in economic gains. Some leaders believe, implausibly, that WisDOT’s “improved” 794 keeps commerce flowing. This approach is reactive, not proactive. Strategically, MARK’s passenger rail will be the heart of an urban- centric district that turbocharges real improvement.
But train platforms alone are not enough. To grow Milwaukee’s heart, we also need the social and economic lifeblood flowing from a complete passenger rail system and robust station district. This district begins with the MARK engineering forecast of 2.3 million annual riders for Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee. A planned gateway district should surround Milwaukee’s Intermodal Station, modeled after successful station districts in comparable cities.
In successful train station districts, riders seek nearby places to live, work and play. Passengers leave and arrive on foot, by auto, by bus or streetcar, via Uber, on bikes and scooters. Businesses gravitate to locations within walking distance — businesses that include startups, branch offices, franchises and corporate newcomers. A growing gateway district can bring jobs, housing, entertainment, public revenues and links to environmental amenities on our lakefront, river and Menomonee Valley.
A thriving gateway district cannot emerge, however, if our Intermodal Station remains strangled on four sides by current obstacles — an inaccessible canal on the south, the monumental post office on the east, an uninviting viaduct on the west and, most obvious, the unappealing 250-foot-wide freeway barricade on the north. Walkways under an overwhelming, dismal freeway never work.
Instead, Milwaukee should plan a balanced, feasible, cooperative solution. Let’s “measure twice and cut once” rather than so quickly moving to rebuild I-794. Unfortunately, with the potential WisDOT recommendation to keep the freeway running through Downtown, balanced opportunities vanish and we face a zero-sum game — a freeway race where only cars can win.
If, however, WisDOT pauses a final recommendation, then within one year the community can plan for balanced costs and benefits. Communitywide planning is not like most WisDOT studies that prioritize transportation and treat land use as a cursory sideline. Communitywide planning goes far beyond “public involvement.” Effective community planning requires shared plan creation by multiple stakeholders with multiple areas of expertise.
With a balanced plan, a rebuilt freeway can still occur, but so too can other ideas for a strong Milwaukee gateway district. A balanced plan will get commuters to work on time, build great neighborhoods on both sides of the river, reduce costs and gain revenue. We should not buy into the current “zero-sum” partisan game where almost everyone loses. We must pause, support the MARK train study, take a strategic look at I-794, consider a gateway district, and then see if we can fix the heart of Milwaukee so all stakeholders benefit.
Larry Witzling, Professor Emeritus UW-Milwaukee
If you think stories like this are important, become a member of Urban Milwaukee and help support real, independent journalism. Plus you get some cool added benefits.
Op-Ed
-
Lessons From Milwaukee’s Flooding
Aug 20th, 2026 by Cheron Copeland
-
Milwaukee’s Sewer System Is a Success Story
Aug 4th, 2026 by Former City of Milwaukee DPW Commissioners Jeff Mantes, Jim Kaminski
-
The Rationale for Rebuilding Milwaukee County’s Public Safety Building
Jul 23rd, 2026 by Sup. Shawn Rolland
Transportation
-
Federal Grant Will Upgrade Bike-Pedestrian Crossings and Bridges
Aug 30th, 2026 by Graham Kilmer
-
The Hop Changes Tracks To Two-Route Configuration
Aug 28th, 2026 by Jeramey Jannene
-
Classic Locomotive Steam Engine Getting Rebuilt in Central Wisconsin
Aug 24th, 2026 by Avery Martinez
Lovely article. The true affection for Milwaukee is not only evident, but persuasive.
Yep as long as this thing called the harbor is ignored then downtown will be great. Those who claim that moving all the goods to and from the harbor on city streets crossing the river is the best have not explained how that is possible I did not think about the river with all these trucks waiting and then having to haul there loads up the on ramps.
Such great vision. All of WisDOT’s public engagement has focused almost entirely on maximizing car-throughput, and has effectively ignored long-term city plans that call for conversion to a boulevard (but that’s by design – a process lobbied for by roadbuilding/auto/oil lobbies). Every freeway-to-boulevard that’s ever happened (even the unplanned ones, done following earthquake damage) has been wildly successful.
And the harbor??? And BIG TRUCKS Long trucks It is just and inconvenient design constraint, Ignoring it will result in total waste.
Thomas, the explanation I’ve heard is
1. Trucks who don’t need to go downtown can use Becher St to get to I-43. Those who go downtown will have a very similar experience as we have today.
2. The port has said on their website they are shifting more of their freight from trucks to railway.
3. The amount of trucks we are talking about is small relative to the economic engine that is our downtown city. We shouldn’t use 24+ acres of land downtown to get a relatively small amount of trucks to places beyond Milwaukee.
If the “freeway” is going to stay over the river that will be good but if it is not then I stand by my comments While the truck will take stuff away Truck will be bringing ship loads of stuff to the harbor as well.
@Thomas, to my knowledge, the city and state would work with the Port to designate truck routes, all of which would likely avoid downtown (Becher/Bay would make the most sense as an alternate). This reduces downtown traffic and air pollution, while shifting housing downtown, where destinations are readily accessible via walking/transit, in turn reduces traffic/pollution on the rest of the city.
Should we constantly tip toe around the delicate sensibilities of the suburban commuter? The stadium interchange and lane expansion is a huge win for them. What about the city? Should we “compromise” with the fear mongers who obsess over the worst case scenarios? Their vision of the future is perpetually bleak, and their fear is self serving. Great things can never materialize under the regime of the status quo. We need radical opportunity. The teardown of 794 is that opportunity.
This is what’s badly needed – a vision. Engineers acknowledged at the public meetings that the 794 project, like all freeway projects, basically occur in isolation, as funding shows up. Nobody is taking a step back to look at the whole region and ask two simple questions: “does this even make sense? What’s the strategy?” The cost of not asking those questions is astronomical. Opportunity costs, indirect health costs, and 50-70 years of long term elevated freeway maintenance did not make it into WisDOT’s presentation of the options.
The writer acknowledges those questions and provides some vision in the bargain.
Once again, wisdom from someone who wouldn’t be inconvenienced by this wonderful boulevard of traffic lined with giveaway land to developers (who aren’t currently interested in the available vacant land downtown).
The PLAN Hummmmmmm Lets look at the truck plan and then look at the rest of the plan. The point is that there is no truck plan but tear down the freeway and then it is not even clear if we keep the river crossing which is absolutely critical What is the plan except tear down the freeway??
Just asking
Has @Thomas Spellman taking even 1 second of time to look at the planned alternatives for tearing the freeway down? He makes it seem like all that has been said is “tear it down” and no additional thought. We live with the world’s knowledge at out fingertips, and I would encourage Thomas to use those finger tips to look into the design documents, and proposals that have come from other groups, like Rethink794, and many of his inquires might be answered.
Sorry if I have missed how the traffic will move. Yes some talk about Bay Street etc BUT what does that really look like and whose house is going to be gored when that alternative is put upon them? The harbor is a THE DESIGN constraint and yet has Urban Milwaukee shown us the plans that WILL WORK to address this simple issues. All the rest is window dressing. We need to see where the road goes that provide both access to the harbor and with the least impact on those that, that traffic passes through.
@Thomas: The road is already there, and is large enough to handle the traffic. In fact, it likely already will during the construction of whichever 794 alternative is selected. Also, Bay St runs largely along industrial areas – so the impact on residents is likely less than running those trucks down 794 downtown. And for cars downtown, the removal plan works because Clybourn becomes a wider, two-way boulevard, with a river bridge. These aren’t some fanciful ideas – they’re a design proposal that WisDOT has already determined will work.
Hummm Read what you wrote “The road is already there” Then why is it not being used if it is already there?? Why is it that the State of Wisconsin has not included it in the plan and put money there to make whatever improvements are necessary? Again the number 1 DESIGN constraint is the harbor and all we do is speculate about the solution while making claims about benefits and solutions. I will be very happy if there is a solution but since there will be lots of federal $$$ in this I suspect that there are limits about how you can control Truck on roads that use federal $$$
Thank you, Larry Witzling. You DO know what you are talking about. Mayor Johnson, future Governor David Crowley, and the residents of the City and County of Milwaukee should pay attention to your most persuasive opinion piece. I’m afraid Mr. Sepllman (sic) doesn’t begin to bring the same experience/background/research/knowledge to the discussion. Thank you, Larry Witzling.
@Thomas I agree and am also underwhelmed with WisDOT’s alternatives analysis and feel it is incomplete. Bay Street is already designated as an “Intermodal Connector” on the US DOT’s National Highway System and is considered part of the regional freight network by SEWRPC. It seems that because of the limited “scope” of this project to the 794 corridor itself, considerations were not seriously given to freight impacts or alternatives. I do think a comprehensive look at the removal scenario suffers for this or even the realistic freight impacts in all scenarios because of the likely decade-long construction process for this project. Do we have to wait until an alternative has been chosen until the construction timeline impacts even begin to be discussed? Travel patterns will have to alter for commuters, truck drivers, and anyone else using 794 for nearly a decade because of construction.
I think the thing Mr. Witzling really hits on here is the lack of a broader vision above the interests of any particular viewpoint. Commuters are concerned only with their commutes, truck drivers are concerned only with their truck routes, WisDOT is (or at least seems) only concerned with automobile throughput. The planner’s role in this process should be to consider as many perspectives as possible and move forward with the alternative that provides the best outcomes as they relate to efficiency, environment, experience, economics, equity, and ease. A transportation system that relieves stress from the arterial street and highway network benefits everyone and WisDOT’s assumption that current traffic volumes will persist into the future (in all alternatives) is poor practice in traffic engineering and has been proven to be inaccurate in the past.