Widening I94
I admit… I’ve been waffling lately on whether Wisconsin should widen I94 between the Illinois border and Milwaukee.
On the one hand, it will be necessary eventually and is the primary commercial route into Wisconsin.
On the other hand, the traffic load doesn’t yet justify the expansion.
On the third hand, it’s better to expand before the traffic peaks to prevent disruption.
On the fourth hand, the state is in a budget crunch and there are other projects that seem more pressing (Zoo interchange, maintenance, etc.)
Thoughts?
Agreed, the traffic’s not awful right now.
Let’s put it off until Doyle figures out how to avoid raiding the “segregated” transportation fund, eh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2008 at 2201 hrs
It should be 4 lanes from the state line to Milwaukee, all the way to Madison, continuing up to Portage, or wherever 39 splits off towards the north.
My least favorite part of 94 in Wisconsin is heading south from 39 to just past Madison.
Posted by cbroolio on August 14, 2008 at 2223 hrs
The obvious widening should have been I-94 from Milwaukee out to Waukesha… Widening the freeway south is joke. It’s just Doyle slapping Waukesha.
How many times have you been stuck in traffic going south versus going east-west??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2008 at 2257 hrs
If Milwaukee passes the family leave referendum, the routes to and from Milwaukee will need to be overhauled.
The morning route will need eight lanes outbound and the evening commute will need eight lanes back to the city.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 0020 hrs
Begging everyone’s pardon, but which of our expressways was it again that flooded this year? I don’t drive much, but I don’t think it was the part from Milwaukee to Illinois.
I think we should make sure that the part that flooded doesn’t do that any more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 0043 hrs
Milwaukee to Madison flooded and all it needs is to not have miles of death rattle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 0053 hrs
The widening project is ill-advised. Not because it won’t eventually be needed (whatever “eventual” really means,) but because as you state, the money should be put into other priorities (or simply not spent at all). It’s also possible that traffic will not increase as much as forecast—see, e.g., the startling miles-driven numbers from the last 6 months.
It’s another demonstration of the “spend, spend, spend” obsessive/compulsive disorder of the State and Feds.
Posted by dad29 on August 15, 2008 at 0650 hrs
Good concerns all. But is nobody also concerned about whether we might not be spending those transportation dollars in such a way as to entourage and facilitate more energy efficient and lower polluting behavior than driving cars all over southeastern Wisconsin? I know a lot of you rail at the idea of the government “encouraging” anything, but I’d like to know what the options are. I’d like to hear all ideas from rail to busses to community development policies which might necessitate less need to drive cars in the first place.
Of course if transportation needs can’t be met solely with those kinds of measures, widen it. I don’t like traffic either.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2008 at 0847 hrs
My least favorite part of 94 in Wisconsin is heading south from 39 to just past Madison.
That’s already 3 lanes wide through there. Every time I drive that section, there’s never enough traffic to justify 3 lanes, just people driving slow in all 3 lanes.
Personally, I’d wait for IL to widen first… traffic is much worse south of the border.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 0855 hrs
Jason- IL is widening that section now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 0911 hrs
Aren’t they just widening from 173 to the South? Isn’t it already 3 lanes from 173 North into Milwaukee? What’s the point of going to 4 if there’s still a several mile section just south of the border that’s still 3. It’s not like we need to grab land to widen it in the future, the land is there. To me, that money would be better spent on other projects.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1214 hrs
People drive cars because they prefer it over mass transit. It gets you where you need to go when you need to be there. Who wants to run their life on a bus/train schedule.
If you live in London or New York and have a highly dense population - mass transit becomes a viable option. We do not have the population density here that will make it a viable option.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1255 hrs
People drive cars because they prefer it over mass transit.
Sure, I know. I drive. What I’m saying is that part of the reason people prefer driving their cars is because of the public policy choices we have made. Perhaps if we made slightly different ones fewer people would choose that option. And if fewer people chose that option it might have positive implications for the environment, energy independence and more thriving communities.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2008 at 1301 hrs
scott what would one of the policy choices be then? It has to account for commerce also as the highways and interstate system provide commerce for most of the nation.
Looking forward to hearing your answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1346 hrs
I’m thinking about how we zone and develop land in ways that help geographically separate work from home. I’m thinking about spending lots and lots of money making automobile transport convenient, while spending very little making mass transit appealing. If we could go back in time 50 years and tweak the choices we made I bet we might be skipping the highway expansions being discussed here, have less pollution and maybe have more neighborhoods where people lived within walking or biking distance to their place of employment.
I’m not saying it’s a panacea. And it’s not even the case that I’m asking the government to put it’s nose in things that it already isn’t doing. We already DO make policy choices that impact transportation, pollution and community development—but we have tended to make them to favor the automobile, long commutes and bedroom communities. We could reevaluate those choices and make different ones if we wanted to. I’d like to look into those options.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2008 at 1357 hrs
Scott, the main problem between Chicago and Milwaukee in the case Owen is talking about isn’t car commuting its trucking. Right now that Highway gets jam packed at times with Trucks going north or south. What policies could we develop that could address that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1404 hrs
Fewer cars means more space for commercial trucking, doesn’t it? But you’re right. I’m bringing up issues different than whether there are too many trucks on the road. I’m bringing up issues of global warming, oil dependence, quality of life, etc.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2008 at 1430 hrs
The main trucking time is at night when cars aren’t on the road scott. Until there is something to replace trucking in America for getting goods to the people trucking will continue to grow and stress our interstate system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1436 hrs
Dude, that’s baloney. If there’s no cars on the road then there’s no problem. Besides, I don’t see where Owen or anyone else is specifically talking about nighttime trucking problems.
If you don’t want to talk about reducing the need for automobile commuting, fine. But don’t try to bullshit me that it doesn’t impact the need for widening the interstate.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2008 at 1444 hrs
Quote from above:
it will be necessary eventually and is the primary commercial route into Wisconsin.
He’s talking commercial traffic no? You were the one you brought up commuting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1448 hrs
And you’re the one trying to tell me that the congestion which leads to the need for expansion has nothing to do with cars and commuting.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2008 at 1449 hrs
So I think what scott is saying is if you reduce the numbers of cars on the highway then you have more space for…
wait for it…...
trucks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1508 hrs
I think you guys are missing the point. The congestion for trucks at night is not due to cars. It’s due to other trucks. Reducing the number of cars would help congestion during the day, but have a negligible effect at night. The only way to relieve the truck congestion is to either find another way to ship goods from door to door or widen the road.
Posted by Owen on August 15, 2008 at 1522 hrs
I missed the part where we were discussing trucking at night as opposed to other times. As best I can see, the subject of nighttime wasn’t even mentioned until comment #18.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2008 at 1533 hrs
Why would I ever want to take a bus or a train when I can drive my car?
I don’t have to wait for the bus - or work my schedule around some external event. If I decide to stop somewhere on my way - I can do that. If I take the bus - I’m stuck with no options.
If I wanted to take a bus somewhere I could - but I don’t want to and no policy decision is going to change that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 1628 hrs
Now to be fair I haven’t been on i94 that much lately but is there some problem of bumper to bumper semis at night that I’m unaware of? And apparently there are no cars on I94 at night? I’ve got to check this out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2008 at 2007 hrs
On the one hand ... On the other hand ... On the third hand ... On the fourth hand ....
Owen, I’m a little late to weigh in on this issue, but how many hands do you have?
Posted by prosqtor on August 17, 2008 at 2023 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129829
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 12:30 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 113
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 03:47 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).