Tag Archives: Zoo Interchange

WisDOT slaps Obama

Posted on by
2

It’s hard to figure: a governor who endorsed Barack Obama for president when it was a semi-risky thing to do is letting his transportation department show total disrespect for the man now that he holds the highest office in the land.

President Obama had made a few priorities absolutely clear: this country must reduce both greenhouse gases and dependency on foreign oil.

Gov. Jim Doyle’s WisDOT, in planning for a new Zoo Interchange, is taking a real slap at the president by totally ignoring those priorities. There will be no planning for any transit to be incorporated into the new design, nor will there be a freeway / transit alternatives analysis done, despite the city’s request.

It’s a road-only study — more greenhouse gases, more dependency on foreign oil. Guess the governor doesn’t like the president all that much.

And why is this plan roads only? Because of a timeline Gov. Jim Doyle set when he was running for re-election and worried that the Republicans would criticize him for not rebuilding the Zoo Interchange before embarking on the North-South I-94 project. There is no valid engineering, environmental or geopolitical argument against including transit in the Zoo Interchange project. The opposite is true. The region, state and country would be better off if transportation planning included transit. That a project this big doesn’t isn’t just a slap at the president and his priorities — it’s a slap at all of us.

WisDOT seeks to discourage lawyers in condemnation cases

Posted on by
1

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is seeking to change the rules and reduce the fees lawyers can earn representing property owners appealing low-bid WisDOT offers to buy their homes or businesses to make way for highways and other transportation projects.

WisDOT is getting ready to launch two major Milwaukee projects — rebuilding the Zoo Interchange and expanding North-South I-94 – that will require major property acquisitions.

The department is proposing that attorney’s fees in litigated compensation cases be limited a maximum of 1/3 of the increased purchase price awarded that amount is at least $700 and 15% higher than WisDOT’s offer. When that 1/3 increase is less than $5,000, attorney’s fees would be limited to a maximum of $5,000.

The agency makes clear that it would like to keep lawyers out of the cases.

“Litigating land purchases consumes more time and resources within the Department compared to negotiating directly with landowners,” the department said in its 2009-11 budget request. “It could adversely affect the timeline of highway construction projects. Securing land can be a first step in a project and any delays can impact final completion and overall project cost.”

The department said in its budget request that property acquisition and litigation costs increased From $5 million in 2004 to $11 million in 2007, but did not say how much property was acquired in each of those years, and how much of the spending increase went to property acquisition and how much went to litigation costs.

“The average litigation attorney fee paid for five property acquisitions between September, 2002 and June, 2006 was $65,700 compared to only $39,700 for the compensation increase paid to the owner,” the department said.

WisDOT does not say why it picked those five particular litigated cases or why the department lowballed its offers by more than $40,000 each or why it did not settle with the property owners before attorney’s fees reached the levels they did.

“The intent of these modifications is to help government agencies acquire property efficiently and reduce taxpayer costs while encouraging property owners to bring to the table their legitimate concerns,” WisDOT said. “They will encourage presenting differences of opinion and other pertinent information during the negotiation stage in order to reach an agreement before going to litigation. For the Department, minimizing litigation efforts will help highway improvement projects stay on schedule and reduce costs.”

Property owners’ rights will not be affected, WisDOT said.

“Because attorney fees are a separate reimbursable cost, establishing limits on these fees will not affect the amount an owner receives for real estate acquired by the Department,” the agency said.

2-year freeway spending rivals entire Marquette Interchange cost

Posted on by
Reply

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s 2009-11 budget request for work on the North-South I-94 and Zoo Interchange reconstruction projects is $766 million — or 95% of the entire cost of the Marquette Interchange project.

More here.

Adding it together

Posted on by
Reply

What do you think the combined impacts of the Waukesha’s desire to dump water into Underwood Creek and WisDOT’s desire to expand every freeway in this corner of the state?

The Underwood Creek passes under I-94 and US 45 in areas designated for potential freeway expansion under the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Zoo Interchange reconstruction plan. Even if WisDOT doesn’t technically expand the freeway, it will be adding a lot of concrete to the freeway and water runoff to the Underwood Creek under various reconstruction scenarios.

WisDOT, if it follows the abysmal precedent it set in its North-South I-94 reconstruction plan, will propose developing not-as-effective-as-they-should-be wetland replacement banks desperately needed in Milwaukee County in Walworth County instead, where they will not do a bit of good for the people living near or downstream from the Underwood Creek.

Add into the mix additional tens of thousands of gallons of treated wastewater sent into the river by Waukesha as part of its plan to return treated wastewater water to Lake Michigan.

All this is sure to increase the likelihood of flooding along Underwood Creek and, as UWM’s Great Lakes Water Institute notes, “Flooding problems have occurred in the UC (Underwood Creek) subwatershed.”