Rethinking the Zoo Interchange Reconstruction

A commentary and analysis

Can someone please explain how this state can afford the Zoo Interchange reconstruction project?

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation certainly isn’t rushing to do so. WisDOT put a $2.3 billion price tag on an expanded interchange, but left out an inconvenient billion or more in interest costs and is absolutely silent on how the state is going to pay for this latest boondoggle, courtesy of DOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi.

WisDOT did present a cost analysis in its draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). But it’s woefully inadequate and grossly misleading. It does not include, for example, the non-WisDOT share of the cost of moving up to 61 electrical transmission towers that would have to be relocated. This is a big-ticket item, and a lot of the costs will be paid by utilities and their ratepayers—in other words, you and me. But nowhere is this reflected in the DEIS. WisDOT seems to believe that if it is not paying the bills, the bills aren’t worth mentioning, even if they are likely to be in the multi-millions of dollars range.

And who will feel the impact of the higher utility bills that will result from moving the transmission lines? Milwaukee ratepayers, simply because Milwaukee residents tend to have lower incomes than suburbanites and utility bills consume a larger share of them.

The DEIS also fails to take into account interest costs on state bonding for the Zoo Interchange upgrades. The numbers are mind-boggling. If 50% of the project cost is bonded, which the Legislative Fiscal Bureau suggests may be about the bonded share of the I-94 North-South project, for 30 years at 5% interest, the interest alone would total $1.1 billion. That’s almost 39% more than the $800 million construction cost of the Marquette Interchange! The annual debt service would be almost $74.4 million (assuming two payments per year). For those who like to keep score, that is $7.8 million more than the $66.6 million Milwaukee County Transit System will get in state operating assistance in 2010.

The ultimate Zoo Interchange bonding scenario is uncertain, but here are a few of the possibilities:

Interest on $1.15 billion (50%) bonded for 20 years at 5%: $682.5 million; debt service of $91.6 million annually.
Interest on $920 million (40%) bonded for 30 years at 5%: $865.9 million; debt service of $59.5 million annually.
Interest on $920 million (40%) bonded for 20 years at 5%: $546 million; debt service of $73.3 million annually.

Environmental and Transit Issues Ignored

WisDOT’s failure to state how it will pay for the Zoo Interchange’s modernization is matched by its unwillingness to come clean about the freeway’s impact on the environment and the future of mass transit in southeastern Wisconsin.

The DEIS is alarmingly deficient in its cumulative impact section and limits its analysis to the immediate Zoo Interchange area. Doing that allows WisDOT to entirely ignore the potential region-, county- or citywide flooding, water quality and air impacts of expanding both the Zoo Interchange and North-South I-94, not to mention the Marquette Interchange.

WisDOT also fails to adequately analyze the effects such huge highway investments will have on transit funding: if we’re paying $70 million or $90 million a year for a single highway project, what’s going to be left for buses and rail? How will people without cars—and there are plenty of them in Milwaukee—get to work?

Ever the experts at transportation planning for the 1950s, WisDOT’s proposals for the Zoo Interchange give zero consideration to future integration of transit in the corridor. Given that destination points around the interchange include Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, the Medical College of Wisconsin, Mayfair Mall, the ever-growing Wisconsin Lutheran College, the Milwaukee County Research Park, the Milwaukee County Zoo and the Highway 100 business area (with Miller Park just a short distance away), this omission is something worse than negligence.

WisDOT argues that expanding the Zoo Interchange will ease congestion, but that ignores both induced demand (“If you build it, they will come”) and the laws of nature. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. At a certain point every clear day, the sun is in the eyes of drivers heading eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. It varies a bit by season, but the sun-in-the-eyes phenomenon occurs generally around rush hour. When it does, cars slow down because drivers can’t see. Congestion happens. And the sun will rise and set and cause congestion no matter how big Wis- DOT makes the freeway.

And like the utility costs, interest costs, debt service costs and cumulative impacts WisDOT chooses to ignore, the sun will still be there even if WisDOT and its coterie of consultants hope real, real hard that the rest of us don’t notice.

To view the DOT’s plans for the Zoo Interchange and weigh in on the DOT’s four options, go to www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects and click on “Milwaukee.” The public can comment on the project until Aug. 10. E-mail your comments to dotdtsdsezoo@dot.wi.gov; or fax them to 262-548-5662; or mail them to James Liptack, P.E., WisDOT, SE Transportation Region, P.O. Box 798,%u2028Waukesha, WI 53187-0798.

Gretchen Schuldt is co-chair of Citizens Allied for Sane Highways, a coalition to oppose freeway expansion in Milwaukee.

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

anonymous

I'm all for sanity in any political discussion, something which recently passed administrations have failed miserably to accomplish. Unfortunately, it isn't only the administration which must have sanity. Critics must also know what they are arguing about. When critics veer from the truth we get idiots vigourously protesting health care reform at town hall meetings or tax reform with tea parties. Gretchen does have some points but she apparently doesn't understand some of the realities to which she argues. First, what is a DEIS, which she mentions as being horribly inadequate? A Draft Environmental Impact Statement is obviously a first draft of a report that needs to be submitted to keep the project on schedule. It isn't a final report and is not complete by it's nature. If you look at the WISDOT Facilities Development Manual Chapter 21-15-1, you will find this definition: The Draft EIS (DEIS) should state that all alternatives are under consideration, and that a decision will be made only after a reasonable public outreach effort has been completed, and the public hearing results and public comments have been evaluated. At the discretion of the region, the DEIS may indicate a preferred alternative. However, this must be done in light of what is intended to be accomplished at the hearing. So as long as comments are made to WISDOT, they will find their way to the final report. Of course, they should be based on sane arguments. Should WISDOT rebuild the interchange? That is a no-brainer. The interchange is over 40 years old and has been beat to s--t. It gets an incredible amount of traffic and you don't want to wait until it turns to gravel before you rebuild it. Waiting to reconstruct it will only lead to higher prices and you will only buy a few years at most before it becomes a critical patient. It was built well for its time but traffic volume and weight limits have increased over the years. It's a reality that the Milwaukee metro population has increased approximately 4% since 1970. It will continue to increase. But that only tells part of the story. The interchange doesn't only carry local vehicles. It carries out-of-area tourists to the great north woods which has seen enormous development since the freeway was built. It has carried huge quantities of goods to expanding shopping areas during the boom years of the 90s and 00s. These were volumes that could never have been anticipated when it was designed in the 60s. I grew up next to the Zoo interchange in the 60s and 70s. It was in my backyard, literally. There was no congestion then as there is today. The concept of induced demand ignores the realities of population and other traffic sources that I outlined above. There are few conduits such as the interstates in Milwaukee. Although some arterials such as Hwy 100, Bluemound Rd, Greenfield Ave, etc could handle larger volumes of vehicles, you don't want to shift the excess traffic to local roads. It doesn't solve any problems and creates more problems somewhere else for local municipalities who have smaller budgets. Induced demand also is not instantaneous - it takes years to build up even if all other factors remain the same. Adding HOV lanes to the existing freeway would solve many problems and would enable faster bus transport during peak hours. This is definitely something WISDOT should include. Other transit possibilities do not have to be included in the interchange proper but could exist nearby. For example, WISDOT owns the old Soo Line right-of-way immediately to the south and parallel with I-94. If there are future rail options, this would be the best place to add it, not on the I-94 corridor. Environmentally, the worst thing for air quality is to have congestion. Unless you have a road full of Prius cars then anytime the traffic slows or stops, they still release pollutants at that location. Expanding lanes will not magically create an increased population of people or vehicles. People and businesses will still make economic decisions for travel based on vehicle costs vs benefits. When fuel prices are high, people don't care how easy the travel is, they care about how much cost they bear. But this out of the realm of WISDOT. Smart growth is another discussion and isn't something the WISDOT should be worrying about. WISDOT needs to fix problems that exist with roadways and you can't wish away these problems. There are things worth complaining to WISDOT about but the majority of things Gretchen outlined are little things. The implication that the project should be killed is misguided, ultra-conservative, and is far from sane. Stick with the big picture and we can get a project that will solve problems.

I know this entry is month past this article, but in reading J Martinez comment I have these thoughts. Where does he reside now as compared to his 60's & 70's address? Wonder if he's one of the burb guys commuting thru the interchange on his way to another DOT event? Let's be honest, we know the agressive DOT and road building go hand in hand. The Zoo interchange will become a 4 lane highway in each direction and the city will lose more tax base so suburbanites can continue to work downtown but run away from the city that they're afraid to live in, but not work in. The listening of individuals affected by this rebuild ing is a requirement of DOT but again they will do what they want regardless of citizens desires. This citizen living in the area wants just a 3 lane roadway but that won't happen. The only hope is that money dries up and the project can't afford to be don.e. Mass transit is totally overlooked and the need to do this hugh job to keep us in our one rider per auto life style is insane. Next project iwill be to finish I 94 east/west to 4 lanes from 25th St. to 70th St. when the Zoo interchanged is finished. Then everyone will be delighted that they can travel so quickly in and out of Milwaukee.

Rethinking the Zoo Interchange Reconstruction

A commentary and analysis

Also in News Features: