Emergency Bridges Needed
The bright side is that those happen to be the bridges in that interchange that I use the least 
Three bridges in the Zoo Interchange have reached such dire condition that the state Department of Transportation acted Thursday to replace them, in what could be a weekend barn-raising fashion, before Memorial Day.
As envisioned by state engineers, sections of pre-constructed replacement spans, upwards of 200 feet long, would be moved into place rapidly to avoid months-long road closings required for traditional demolition and reconstruction work.
Use of the accelerated construction approach would be a first in Wisconsin.
DOT officials estimate the rapid replacement will cost roughly $12 million to $22 million.
And the new bridges will be torn out and replaced again, during a reconstruction of the entire interchange, now projected to begin around 2014 to 2016.
The state appears to have little choice but to double up the bridge building.
My wife and I almost never use the Zoo Interchange, and I couldn’t be happier about it. If this thing collapses, it will be a tragedy of massive proportions. Not only for the potential loss of life, but also for the candidacy of Tom Barrett.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 0848 hrs
Gross, criminal misconduct in office, potentially a number of manslaughter charges as well.
Too bad that the Governor’s and Mayor’s pensions won’t cover the $22 million they’re costing for this willful screwing of the taxpayers.
Posted by dad29 on November 20, 2009 at 0900 hrs
What per cent of the gas tax money has been used for other government spending , such as government pensions, salaries etc?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1034 hrs
I couldn’t be happier about it. If this thing collapses, it will be a tragedy of massive proportions.
Wow Doug that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
As far as Barrett goes how does this effect him?
Isn’t the county responsible for Freeway maintenance?
I love finger pointing exercises:)
Thanks Scotty
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1125 hrs
Nice selective quoting there… You learn that from Hannity, or Maddow?
The chains around Doyles neck will be put on Barrett during the genaeral election. It just so happens that the heaviest one is the hole in our transportation budget.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1206 hrs
My wife and I almost never use the Zoo Interchange, and I couldn’t be happier about it. If this thing collapses, it will be a tragedy of massive proportions. Not only for the potential loss of life, but also for the candidacy of Tom Barrett.
So you think it reads better in its entirety?
Try again.
And who gets paid almost $18 million by the state and the feds for Freeway maintenance within Milwaukee County?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1232 hrs
Are you kidding? I was saying that I am happy, for my family’s sake that we don’t have to use that interchange often. Maintenance and replacement of old bridges are two different things. The county is not responsible for the replacement of interstate highway interchanges.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1235 hrs
Except that was not all you said.
Nice selective interpretation. Learn that from Rumsfeld?
Maintenance and replacement of old bridges are two different things. The county is not responsible for the replacement of interstate highway interchanges.
Nobody said they were, but I am guessing they had some primary role in inspecting them and determining there overall condition, safety and maintenance needs.
The County Executive 2010 Budget doc link above and the MCDPW website seems to make that claim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1249 hrs
It was because of Barrett’s insitence that no additional lanes be part of the larger East-West freeway rebuild that caused the entire project to be delayed indefinitely from its original 2009 start date. Originally, the Zoo was to be rebuilt as part of that, much like the similar-construction, slightly-newer Mitchell Interchange is being rebuilt as part of the airport-to-Illinois I-94 rebuild.
However, the Zoo Interchange was already in such bad shape by the end of 2006 that it was decided to separate it from the larger East-West rebuild and attempt to fast-track it to, at first, 2014, then 2012, then no earlier than 2014.
As for the maintenance, while the county is responsible for “spot” maintenance on the freeway system (e.g. pavement patching and snow/ice removal), the DOT handles inspection and maintenance of the bridges.
In any case, it is not a failure of maintenance, but a failure to replace the structures before their designed obselescence date combined with a design that is not exactly sturdy and higher-than-anticipated traffic.
Posted by steveegg on November 20, 2009 at 1251 hrs
It was because of Barrett’s insitence that no additional lanes be part of the larger East-West freeway rebuild that caused the entire project to be delayed indefinitely from its original 2009 start date.
Really?
Got a link?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1321 hrs
Search it yourself, but I suggest starting in 2004, when the surprise decision to rebuild I-94 for the benefit of Illinois residents rather than I-94 for the benefit of western Milwaukee County and Waukesha County residents was made.
Bonus item - in 2005, when the Zoo was first separated from the larger East-West project, Barrett said in a letter to the Senate leadership written in his capacity as Milwaukee’s mayor, “...(t)he Zoo Interchange will stand long enough for us to resolve these issues.”
Posted by steveegg on November 20, 2009 at 1439 hrs
This from JSOnline.
Work on the interchange was pushed off indefinitely in the 2009-‘11 budget, when Doyle and the Legislature allocated only $20 million for engineering and design, one-tenth of the amount requested by the DOT. The final plan on the reconstruction will be finished in June, but no date for construction start has been set.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/70541002.html
This from OnMilwaukee.com.But a funny thing has happened on the way from the committee table to the planning table. Several months ago, state Department of Transportation secretary Frank Busalacchi announced that the DOT would instead [of the zoo interchange] recommend the next project after the Marquette be the 35-mile stretch from the state line to the Mitchell Interchange, including the reconstruction of the interchange and likely widening of the freeway.
At a meeting last week at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Kanavas and Waukesha County executive Dan Finley said they would fight the DOT’s decision in the state Legislature. They said the $1 billion Mitchell project would delay the east/west corridor work until 2017 at the earliest, when the section would be 60 years old and crumbling.
And both men and other Zoo-rebuild advocates blamed the delay on the Story Hill neighborhood and its activist anti-freeway expansion group known as CASH—Citizens Allied for Sane Highways. They said it was clear that Gov. Jim Doyle did not want to battle the group’s members, who have raised their voices of protest at every step in the freeway planning process
.
http://www.onmilwaukee.com/buzz/articles/storyhillhighway.html
To me it looks like governor Doyle, in his budgeting shenanigans managed to screw this thing up royally.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1537 hrs
And who gets paid almost $18 million by the state and the feds for Freeway maintenance within Milwaukee County?
So the $18 million/yr was supposed to be saved each year, to the detriment of all the other highways in the county for 1,000 years until there was enough to cover the 2.2 Billion to rebuild the interchange?
Try again…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1556 hrs
Thanks steve, couldn’t find anything in 2004 but the 2005 letter you mentioned had some other interesting quotes.
I’m writing in opposition to funding preliminary engineering of the Zoo Interchange….......Spending taxpayers’ money on this project before we have a consensus on where we’re headed with the freeway system is foolish.
Milwaukee County has not endorsed SEWRPC’s freeway plan
Let’s get agreement on our transportation priorities, before throwing $38 million at the
highway engineers without a plan for what a successful interchange and freeway system
will look like.Do we have a completed plan that anyone is endorsing?
Was anyone sqawking about the condition of the bridges in 2005-2008?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1556 hrs
So the $18 million/yr was supposed to be saved each year, to the detriment of all the other highways in the county for 1,000 years until there was enough to cover the 2.2 Billion to rebuild the interchange?
Doug, my point was that I don’t see how the City of Milwaukee, or its Mayor can be held culpable for the condition of a freeway interchange that isn’t in the city to begin with and is the responsibility of the county to maintain and the state to rehabilitate or rebuild.
You are welcome to your opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1610 hrs
</blockquote></blockquote>
As a matter of fact, yes there were a lot of people noting that the bridges would not last much past 2012 at the time. Indeed, the 2003-era SEWPRC plan noted that reconstruction of the bridges in the Zoo Interchange would be required between 2011 and 2015.The reason the city of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee County Board rejected the SEWPRC plan was because Barrett and the majorities of the common council and the board hate freeways.
Posted by steveegg on November 20, 2009 at 1727 hrs
Let’s see if that closes the ill-formed formatting.
Posted by steveegg on November 20, 2009 at 1728 hrs
Doug, my point was that I don’t see how the City of Milwaukee, or its Mayor can be held culpable for the condition of a freeway interchange that isn’t in the city to begin with and is the responsibility of the county to maintain and the state to rehabilitate or rebuild.
I wasn’t saying that Barrett is responsible for the interchange (although he did have a hand in delaying its rebuilding). I am saying that he is likely to be the political target for it’s failing. Doyle holds the most culpability here, and Barrett is his hand picked successor (remember he chased Lawton out of the race in Barrett’s interest) and he is likely to be linked to the mistakes made by Doyle.
Right or Wrong, it is politics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1733 hrs
Think of the 2010 Governor’s race in similar terms to the 2008 Presidential Election…
“We just can’t afford more of the same failed policies of the past 8 years!”
Barrett will be saddled with Doyle’s idiocy and disapproval ratings. And 8 years of a gap is too long for anyone to try to point the blame back at Thompson. Doyle ran on “fixing” the budget - and he “fixed” it alright, but by making it worse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1039 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 11:24 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).