Let's Talk About Rethinking I-794

Is there any place sadder in Milwaukee than Pompeii Square?

  
At the height of Milwaukee's rush to capture as many federal highway dollars as possible, Milwaukee was willing to demolish its historic downtown train station (to make way for the proposed Lakefront North Freeway), and tear down Milwaukee's oldest Italian catholic church (the Blessed Virgin of Pompeii Church), and in the process destroy a once vibrant Italian neighborhood. Pompeii Square is a sad, sad reminder of those decisions.

President Eisenhower never wanted interstate roads to go through cities, and certainly not through dense residential neighborhoods. According to the Federal Highway Administration's website, President Eisenhower said this at a high level meeting in April 1960: "[President Eisenhower] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way." (Emphasis added.) 

Eisenhower was a cosmopolitan man, who had traveled and visited great cities all over the world. He understood the importance of a good network of interstate highways between states, and between cities, but he also understood the importance of vibrant, downtown urban areas (and never intended interstate routes to go through or destroy those downtown areas, or through neighborhoods).  

As many of you know, my office is downtown, on Wisconsin Avenue near the Milwaukee River. For the majority of my career as a lawyer, my office has been in downtown Milwaukee. I'm not anti-car. I own a car, and I regularly use it (even if I'm trying to use it less than I did previously, for several reasons). But I have always thought that I-794 blights the area around it, and creates a barrier between the downtown and the Third Ward. I hate walking around I-794, I hate biking around I-794, and I hate driving around I-794. If you are on Clybourne, or on one of the streets adjacent to I-794, there are very few places (with only 1 or 2 exceptions I can think of) that are capable of sparking a feeling of joy.

   
I can remember visiting Milwaukee in the 1970's when I was a kid, and riding along in a car on I-43 and looking at houses that were next to the interstate, and thinking "wow, the poor people who live right here, who had this huge highway built right next to their homes, and who have to live next to all of this noise, exhaust, and traffic." Even then, I had this sense that what had happened was somehow unfair, wrong, and unjust.  

According to DOT, if we were to re-establish Milwaukee's traditional street grid where I-794 currently is, and remove that elevated, limited access highway, we would be opening up more than 30 acres of downtown and/or lake-view property to new development.

 
To me, this is an opportunity for us to reconsider our past mistakes (or sins), and chart a new path. This gives us an opportunity to think like a 21st Century city (not a 1960s city). The young, educated, intelligent, talented and creative workforce that downtown businesses are working hard to recruit, are looking for vibrant urban streets and neighborhoods to live and work in. No one wants to live or work next to an elevated interstate highway. 

It is possible to have surface streets that are vibrant for shops, pedestrians and other users, and which streets still move a large volume of cars (see for example the Champs Elysees in Paris, which has a traffic volume of about 65,000 cars per day.) What would Paris be like if instead of the Champs Elysees, that was instead replaced with an elevated, interstate highway? That would be an urban planning sin of collosal proportions.

Removing the Park East Freeway led to over one billion dollars in private investment in that neighborhood, and "carmageddon" did not occur, despite many naysayers' predictions. Same thing happened in San Francisco, when they took down the Embarcadero freeway, and other urban freeways in other cities. It is estimated that replacing I-794 with a traditional street grid would lead to $1.5 billion dollars worth of investment in that area.

 
I urge you to explore Rethink 794's website to learn about the history of 794, and about why re-establishing a traditional street grid, and opening up more than 30 acres to new development, could be such a great thing for Milwaukee's future.

There are trade offs we all need to weigh as we consider whether to replace an elevated I-794. If I-794 is replaced (rather than repaired at great expense), that may result in my drive from the river to the lake taking a few more minutes than it currently does. But in exchange, I expect I will get a revitalized, and re-connected downtown and Third Ward. Maybe I'll get a few new bars or restaurants with outdoor seating, that I really like, or some new stores. Maybe I'll see Marquette University High School (or some other school) relocate to a new facility, that has great lake views, and sports facilities for kids. To me, the speed of the drive is not the most important thing, if what I get in return is a better drive, a better street, and a better neighborhood.

  
For example, if the Lake Freeway (North) had been built from somewhere on the Eastside through Juneau Park to the Hoan Bridge and I-794 (hooking up the proposed extension of the Park East Freeway to the lakefront), I could probably today get to the Marquette Interchange faster than I can today (driving from Shorewood, along the lake). But at what cost? What would happen to my views of the lake, the art museum, and people enjoying Veterans Park while I make that drive? That would disappear (think of how on the Eastside of Cleveland, I-90 hugs Lake Erie, and blights that beautiful shoreline for miles). Would I want an elevated, limited access freeway acting as a barrier between the Eastside (where my church is, and where many of my friends live), and the lakefront? Certainly, no.

To bring the debate or discussion examples even closer to Shorewood, what about the changes we've made over the last ten years along Wilson Drive? Let's face it, Wilson Drive used to be used by many as something like an "expressway" between Capitol Drive and Hampton Avenue. We've changed it. Yes, you and I and most other people are driving a little slower on Wilson Drive these days. But I know I'm enjoying that drive more than I used to, and I think the traffic calming measures that have gone in place on Wilson has made Wilson a better street (both in terms of to drive on, to live on, to walk on and to bike on). 

Or look at Oakland Avenue in Shorewood north of Capitol Drive. We've put in traffic calming measures on that stretch of street, and its paid off in residential and commercial development for Shorewood. Or the new traffic calming on-street features on Estabrook Parkway? Who in Shorewood wants to go back to the old Wilson Drive, the old Estabrook Park/Parkway, or the old Oakland Avenue (that had no street life)? Certainly I don't.

On August 1st and August 2nd the Wisconsin DOT will hold a public meeting to consider several options relating to I-794.  I urge you to visit the Rethink I-794 website, scroll down, and learn about:

• The history of interstate highway proposals and construction in downtown Milwaukee; and

• The options that are currently proposed by the DOT. 

I’ve attended several meetings on this issue (including a half day symposium at Marquette University, that featured a wide spectrum of viewpoints on this issue). I've also read the articles I could find about this project. I admit that at first, I was sceptical about taking down I-794. And I still want to hear more from the DOT (and others) regarding how taking down I-794 would affect travel times in downtown Milwaukee, or for drivers traveling through that area (such as people who live in Shorewood or St. Francis). But based on what I've seen so far, my current conclusion is that re-establishing the traditional grid would help to create a more vibrant downtown Milwaukee and lakefront.

  
Key for me is the positive developments that followed the taking down of other interstate highways in urban areas. Thirty U.S. cities are now considering doing such. Taking down the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee led to over a billion dollars in private investment in that area. I like the Deer District, and what that has done for Milwaukee's image. Similarly, San Francisco's decision to remove the Embarcadero Freeway--a decision that was hugely controversial at the time--has been a huge success for that city.  

If elevated 794 is removed (rather than repaired) it is not like all the vehicles that currently travel on I-794 will (after redevelopment) be traveling on one surface street (e.g., Clybourne). This is becase a traditional urban street grid (as opposed to a limited access elevated highway) enables the diffusion of traffic (and more route options for drivers).

 

We can have nice, beautiful, vibrant streets in Milwaukee. Or at least, as indicated by the above 1909 drawing, prior city planners thought so.

The bottom line is Milwaukeeans of good will working together (1) defeated the proposed Lakefront (North) Freeway, and the proposed extension of the Park East Freeway all the way to the lakefront; and (2) successfully advocated for the freeing up all of the real estate that was economically blighted by the existence of the Park East Freeway. Over one billion dollars in private real estate investment followed. From what I've seen so far, similar postive results will be achieved, if the traditional Milwaukee street grid can be re-established, and 30 acres of valuable now blighted, under-utilized downtown real estate can be re-developed in the current I-794 blight zone.

This may overly simplify the issue for some, but isn't it time we spend less time discusing what the Milwaukee Public Museum is going to do with the "Streest of Old Milwaukee" display, and more time disucussing what we can do to create great vibrant streets in a Future Milwaukee? 

I encourage you to learn more about this issue. One way to do that is to attend one of the DOT meetings, and talk with DOT officials, and your "neighbors" (using that term in the broad, biblical sense). The details about those meetings are at this link. Or, if you can't attend in person, the link tells you how you can submit written comments. 

If you have studies, statistics or views that you think I should consider (as I think through exactly what my final position on this issue is, and which of the options the DOT has proposed I support), I welcome the oportunity to hear about such. And, as always, I'm more likely to be persauded by research, well-designed predictions by qualified experts, and statistics, as opposed to subjective predictions that it is obvious that "carmageddon" will obviously occur. I believe we can have a civic, fact-rich discussion on this issue, and I hope you do as well.