Sunday Symposium: I-94 expansion vs. mass transit funding

Posted: May 31, 2008

No need for an interstate expansion

I am writing in response to the article on I-94 expansion ("Will wider I-94 squash rail?" May 28). To begin, I want to make clear I am a conservative and not particularly green. However, I believe this project is ridiculous.

Recent Coverage

05/28/08: Will wider I-94 squash rail?

Any study you review indicates that this area is losing population to the Sun Belt. Combine that with the fact that oil prices will never be lower than they are today.

I am in sales and drive that route at least twice per month and can tell you on the Wisconsin side there has never been congestion. Why can't our local "leaders" understand it is time to actually be bold and move into the 21st century?

Brad Tinsey
Milwaukee

No congestion exists

As someone who drives from Milwaukee through Chicago to Michigan nearly every weekend and right after work on Fridays, I'm curious as to why we need to expand the highway between Milwaukee and the Illinois border. The only problems with congestion that I see are caused by people who aren't paying attention to what they're doing.

The road appears to be adequate to handle the amount of traffic for now, and with rising gas prices, one would think the money could be better spent on a mass transit alternative.

If the project must go through as planned, I have one request for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation: Please do one side of the highway at a time. It would be less annoying if we were only inconvenienced in one direction. The current construction in Illinois, north of Chicago, is maddening in that we're stuck in it both ways every weekend. The road work on I-94 in Racine County in 2001 was the same way. Let's show them we can do it smarter.

Michael Gronert
Milwaukee

Don't fund transit

I read with great interest the May 28 article "Will wider I-94 squash rail?" One can only hope expanding our freeway system will once and for all debunk this continued and annoying debate about mass transit.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett says widening I-94 is an expensive roadblock to mass transit and that it represents the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's failure to invest in mass transit ("Without rail, transportation system off track in Milwaukee," May 25 Crossroads). Having read prior articles explaining Barrett's position on mass transit, I'm sure he bemoans the fact that suburbanites fail to invest in mass transit as well. I recall the city even has proposed a wheel tax on automobiles to support transit riders. My goodness, how backward is that? I should pay yet another tax, this time for something I won't ever use?

Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi summed it up well, saying that mass transit is the responsibility of the city and the county. He cited the lack of local and regional consensus for a commitment to mass transit.

By the way, my definition of local does not include Milwaukee. We are so fortunate that it will require a referendum to initiate any spending on light rail!

Finally, it was ironic that an article appeared in the same edition - "Grand Avenue has an uphill climb." It was interesting that one of the points made was that "suburbanites long ago stopped coming downtown to shop."

At least someone recognizes that for those of us who have escaped the taxation of Milwaukee, downtown has changed from a destination to a place to go through to get somewhere else.

David Hughes
Brookfield

Rail would be great for Milwaukee

I think Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is right about Milwaukee's transit needs. A rail system could help the bus system in Milwaukee, and the bus system could expand off of that train system.

I don't think all of the positives of rail transit have been addressed. Last time I checked, Milwaukee gets snow. During those blizzards, buses can and do get stuck, while a train can keep on going. What about when a bus breaks down? You have to wait for help and a tow, while in the meantime, blocking passage of buses behind that one or forcing other buses off of the busway into mainline traffic.

If a train breaks down, another train can be called into action to push the broken one to the appropriate location, at the same time moving the passengers to their destination.

It has been said before that Milwaukee is seeing its transit situation as a cost and not as an investment; that is absolutely true and quite unfortunate.

Finally, trains really do spur much more development than roads and streets, something Milwaukee could surely use.

Joel Schmick
Sobieski