Moving Ahead with Expanding I-94

Here’s some good news.

Plans to expand 35 miles of I-94 from six lanes to eight between Milwaukee and Illinois moved closer to final approval Friday with a report that declared the project would comply with federal environmental laws.

Barring a dramatic shift, the $1.9 billion reconstruction and expansion plan appears in line to receive a go-ahead from the Federal Highway Administration after a 30-day comment period, which follows release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

I know that some folks don’t want this, but let’s be real.  This corridor is one of the primary routes for commerce in and out of Wisconsin.  Expanding it is not only necessary for the present, it will benefit Wisconsin’s economy for years to come. 

1. I agree that the expansion of I-94 is critical to the economic development of our state but I have to wonder if right now is the time. We have a budget deficit that needs to be worked out and to commit that kind of money at a time when it is simply not there goes against reason.
   How do we keep spending like we do and not expect our taxes and fees to be increased?
   Will we tax businesses that will benefit from this or hang it on the property owners? (I realize that they will supposedly benefit from shorter commute times but that is the argument for the commuter rail).

   In the future we may be able to afford this but at the moment we need to try to dig ourselves out of the hole we’ve dug by not reigning in spending when the economy tanked at the end of the 90’s. For 2 or 3 years we continued to spend down our reserve funds while the revenues were shrinking, we don’t have those funds to rely on anymore.

   I believe the highway expansion is a good idea but we must wait until we can afford it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 05, 2008 at 1316 hrs




2. I’m curious how much cooperation with Illinois.  I don’t see a point of making it eight lanes from here to the border if it’s going to go back to three lanes where the interstate is most congested. Are there any plans to make a lane or two of the road express, with no local access?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 05, 2008 at 1350 hrs




3. All well and good for expanding I-94 south to Chicago. When are they going to apply the same logic to expanding I-94 West out to Waukesha and Madison?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 05, 2008 at 1400 hrs




4. our highway as big and nice as going in and out of Madison?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 05, 2008 at 1416 hrs




5. Will we tax businesses that will benefit from this or hang it on the property owners?

   Now I may be just a tad old fashioned in this belief, but in my mind, one of the core responsibilities of the Government is a decent transportation system. And to the dismay of many, that includes roads.

   What really disturbs me though is that—at least theoretically—at least some of the money for this project was already in the bank. For those of you who have forgotten Jim Doyle has raided the transportation fund for AT LEAST 1.527 BILLION DOLLARS

   However because the Interstate technically under federal jurisdiction the Feds’ reimburse—I believe—around 80 percent of the cost thru the collection of excise taxes on fuel, truck tires, and the Heavy Vehicle Use tax that I as a truck owner pay. And that you as a Car owner pay with the Federal portion of the Gas tax.—Although lets face it, I get jacked a lot more than you do.

   It seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that this is a project that the State of Wisconsin pays for entirely—which initially is the case but as I stated before is payed back by the Federal Government.

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 05, 2008 at 1512 hrs




6. And BTW MoveForward:

   The people do benefit the most from the Roads—The Transportation industry—(and industry that I am part of) already do pay for the greatest share.

   There is:

   1. A federal excise tax of around 10 percent for New equipment (trucks and trailers) Purchases.

   2. A heavy use Tax that is paid to the IRS currently $1800.00 per Year/per truck. That goes to this fund.

   3. The federal portion of the Gas/Diesel tax also goes into this fund. And last year I spent just under $35,000 just on Diesel fuel. And the State portion of this tax goes into Wisconsins coffers.

   4. Licensing of the vehicle, currently 2500.00 dollars per year in Wisconsin some of this money also goes to the Feds while the Lions share stays in Wisconsin.

   So as you can see (I hope) I am already paying quite a bit for this road that is being built, Why do you think its a good idea to tax me some more?

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 05, 2008 at 1524 hrs




7. I’ve made this comment elsewhere; good idea, but do we need to tack on the proposal to shut down access to 27th St from the Mitchell Interchange?  That is going to *KILL* businesses on 27th St; I know, I live not far from there.

   Posted by Coop on April 05, 2008 at 1745 hrs




8. Actually coop I thing closing that on/off ramp actually is a good idea unless one of 2 things happen.

   1. Close off access from 27th to eastbound 894, it is WAY to dangerous to have merging traffic coming from 27th street to move over 2 lanes to jump on 43N

   2. They really should remove the cloverleaf ramp from 27th street to get on 894W.

   I don’t really think that closing that ramp will really be that big of a burden. Especially when you consider that at some point when the road work starts in that area, you will have to detour around it anyway.

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 05, 2008 at 1835 hrs




9. BigT, Illinois is in the process of making the Tri-State Tollway 8 lanes.  I don’t know if they’re expanding the Edens Spur (the I-94 split from the Tollway headed toward Chicago) from its current 4-lane configuration as well.

   Coop and Michael, what they’re doing with the 27th Street ramp (and the related movements in the Mitchell) is…

   - Making east-to-north traffic through the Mitchell interchange exit on the right side and east-to-south exit on the left side (opposite of what it is now); supposedly that matches current protocol of making the highest-usage ramp use the left lane(s).
   - Making the 27th St. interchange a U-ramp, with traffic wanting to go north-to-west and south-to-east (really, north) turning right at the same place as north-to-north and south-to-west and using a pair of new bridges.  Guess that single-point interchange idea isn’t exactly working in Eau Claire.
   - Closing off northbound I-94-to-27th and 27th-to-southbound I-94 access.  Why?  Because there’s going to be a lot of freshly-developable land at I-94 and Layton with the reconfiguration of the Layton Ave. ramps, not because it’s impossible to engineer access (indeed, a couple of exhibits in the EIS draft statement had those movements existing with no additional land taken).

   Posted by steveegg on April 05, 2008 at 2210 hrs




10. steveegg:

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 05, 2008 at 2215 hrs




11. You guys are using come confusing terminology or references.
    When you are referring to the 27th St interchange with I-94, do you mean south of Hwy 100, which is the only interchange of those 2?  Or are you referring to I-94 near the valley, west of Marquette, with Exits for 26th and 22nd streets, near where 27th street becomes Layton?  Or are you referring to I-894/43 interchange with 27th Street west of Mitchell and north of Layton running parrallel with the combined 894/43?
    Increasing the road size is essential to Wisconsin’s future.  These INTERSTATE Expressways are not intended for the local traffic getting on and off every exit or 2 with a mile or less of I-time.  More exits should be closed - about half or 2/3 of the city interchanges.
    Wasn’t the expansion for Waukesha already approved?  isn’t that part of the package that started with the Marquette rebuild?
    With the wacko “only ride bicycles” morons running Madison, every opportunity to expand our undersized roads shoud be embraced - it doesn’t come easy, and the State of Wi is our own worst enemy in this regard.
    This is needed for the entire State tranpo corridors.  Green Bay/Appleton businesses need these improvements to remain competitive.
    Allow the businesses to compete by building the roads, and then the tax revenue can grow.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 0329 hrs




12. Hawkman:

    When we say the 27th St. Interchange we are referring to what Amounts to the last Exit on 894 just before it turns back in 94, north of the Airport. (Where 894,43,and94 all converge, otherwise know as the Mitchell Interchange)

    And as I understand the tentative road construction schedule, 94 from the Airport to the State line is First, followed by reconstruction of HWY 45, (starting in 2013) and then I believe I94 follows that, and I believe that is scheduled for 2020. 

    I could be wrong but I do believe these are what I have heard.

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 08, 2008 at 0906 hrs