Redesigning WIS-175

Recommending Uses for the Wisconsin State Highway 175 Right-of-Way Prepared for Doug Cain - Project Manager Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Southeast Region Nic D’Amato | Patrick Finucane | Louis Glotfelty | Sydney Swift Department of Urban Planning UW—Milwaukee, Fall 2022

2 N. D’Amato, P. Finucane, L. Glotfelty, S. Swift UW-Milwaukee, Department of Urban Planning 2131 E. Hartford Ave. Rm 208 Milwaukee, WI 53211 Doug Cain | Project Manager Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Southeast Region 141 NW Barstow St. Waukesha, Wi 53188 Dr. Robert Schneider | Department of Urban Planning – Chair University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee | School of Architecture and Urban Planning Milwaukee, WI 53201 Dear Doug Cain, Thank you for the opportunity to propose design alternatives for State Highway 175 (WIS-175) in the City of Milwaukee. We have carefully examined the matter and analyzed four alternatives for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), Southeast Region, to consider. Our team has developed this report using evidence-based references and our solutions aim to improve connectivity, accessibility, and safety for area residents while ensuring adequate traffic capacity and traffic flow along the corridor. After group deliberation, we recommend WisDOT implement an inset boulevard with pedestrian connections. This alternative proposes retaining the current grade of WIS-175 while altering the design to function as a boulevard below grade. The boulevard design designates space for bus, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, and it accommodates two to three travel lanes in each direction. In addition to the corridor’s multimodal connections, automobile and freight access is enhanced for a more direct access to industrial sites such as Molson Coors and Harley Davidson. Near Washington Park, proposed development will border the western edge of the boulevard. These developments will be encouraged to take advantage of the unique opportunity to accommodate two street frontages—one on N. 47th St. and the other along the newly constructed boulevard. Lastly, newly established pedestrian and bicycle connections are incorporated through bridge enhancements, staircases, elevators, and ramps. In addition to our preferred alternative, we analyzed three other design strategies for you to consider. These include an at-grade boulevard, two parallel one-way streets, and a series of freeway caps. Although each alternative has merit, we see great potential for the inset boulevard alternative due to its connectivity, cost efficiency, inclusive design, and its political feasibility. There are some challenges to consider with this alternative such as ensuring accessibility to the lowergrade boulevard for people of all abilities and safeguarding that design proposals will move forward as intended so that multi-modal transportation is equally prioritized throughout the corridor. Thank you again for the opportunity to come up with solutions to address the needs of your department and the greater community you serve. We hope you find our research comprehensive and precise. Please contact our team should you have further questions regarding the analysis and recommendation. Best Regards, Nic D’Amato, Patrick Finucane, Louie Glotfelty, and Sydney Swift

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For over 50 years Wisconsin State Highway 175 (WIS-175) has fractured the urban fabric of Milwaukee’s adjacent neighborhood while only providing limited access northbound from I-94. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) is examining solutions to improve this corridor. Our research team investigated the feasibility of four alternatives for the corridor with the intended goal of restoring social connectivity, physical mobility, and economic vitality between the long-divided surrounding communities. In this report, the WIS-175 study area was divided into four segments (see Appendix A, Figure 1). Segment 1, stretching from W. Wisconsin Ave. to W. State St., has design challenges that include bypassing the Menomonee River and the railroad which run perpendicular to WIS-175 (see Appendix A, Figure 2). Creating connections for bike and pedestrian access across the valley was an additional challenge. Segment 2 stretches from W. State St. to W. Vliet St. Balancing safety and efficiency within this segment was challenging due to significant grade changes both north-to-south and east-to-west (see Appendix A, Figure 3). Segment 3 spans south from W. Vliet St. to W. Lloyd St. along Washington Park’s Western edge (see Appendix A, Figure 4). This segment presented challenges in the form of east-west connections that have been severed since the completion of WIS-175 in 1962. Segment 4 extends from W. Lloyd St. to W. Lisbon Ave (see Appendix A, Figure 5). In its current design, this segment discharges high speed freeway traffic onto local roadsresulting in high-crash-risk intersections. Countering these conditions was a priority in this study. Four criteria were developed to measure alternatives to this corridor. These criteria focus on connectivity, cost efficiency, inclusive design, and political feasibility. The effectiveness criterion measured car, bicycle, and pedestrian access to and from six different points along the corridor. The efficiency criterion recommends that the total project cost remain below the threshold of $150 million. The equity criterion sought to ensure that alternatives increase access and safety for all, especially those who do not have access to a private vehicle. Lastly, the political feasibility criterion factors in the influence of local stakeholders and the approval process of WisDOT officials. Alternative 1 explores the feasibility of an at-grade boulevard to provide multimodal access for surrounding communities. It includes a two-way cycle track running adjacent to the road, a dedicated streetcar route through the center of the boulevard, and a transit hub at the northern edge. Alternative 2 investigates the possibility of two parallel, one-way streets that would be built at-grade with the surrounding neighborhoods. This proposal creates new opportunities for development and multi-modal access but may not be politically feasible or accepted by WisDOT. Alternative 3 investigates the feasibility of keeping WIS-175 as-is with land bridges capping the freeway at critical connection points. Alternative four, our team’s recommended alternative, utilizes the existing grade of WIS-175 and reimagines the corridor with an inset boulevard and enhanced pedestrian connections. This alternative allows for increased multimodal access, improved bicycle and pedestrian safety, and new mixed-use development, all while enhancing traffic flow conditions. The recommendation also best achieves critical thresholds established in our criteria. All four alternatives explored vastly different solutions for improving neighborhood connectivity and multimodal access in the WIS-175 corridor. The goal of these alternatives, and our team’s recommendation, is to reconnect historically divided communities while enhancing access and mobility for all users within the corridor.

4 PROBLEM STATEMENT The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), Southeast Region, is currently seeking redevelopment solutions for the Wisconsin State Highway 175 (WIS-175) spur, also known as the Stadium Freeway. This 1.5-mile corridor extends from West Wisconsin Avenue to West Lisbon Avenue in the City of Milwaukee. The current design of WIS-175 directs high-speed, motorized traffic from I-94, creating a physical barrier between the adjacent neighborhoods and preventing social and economic connectivity for area residents. The Stadium Freeway was constructed in 1962 during the Era of Urban Renewal—a time when there were plans to build an interconnected freeway network throughout Milwaukee, linked by a series of widened boulevards. 1 This urban planning movement resulted in the displacement of approximately 21,500 Milwaukee residents, the vast majority of which were people of color.2 By 1972, neighborhood and environmental activists pushed back against the planned freeway expansions and ultimately halted the northbound Stadium Freeway extension from moving forward. As a result, WIS-175 has been left as an uncompleted highway spur for the past 50 years, acting as a barrier between neighborhoods. The freeways remain the physical representation of segregation in the City of Milwaukee. Consequently, the neighborhoods surrounding the corridor today have drastic socioeconomic disparities that further the divide along the corridor. The majority of residents in census tracts east of WIS-175 identify as Black (80.75%)3 and experience a poverty rate of approximately 23%. 4 Conversely, communities in census tracts west of WIS-175 are majority white (93%)5 and experience a low poverty rate of approximately 4%. 6 Moreover, the commuting patterns of these communities differ significantly. Approximately 21% of residents living east of WIS-175 do not have access to a private vehicle and on other modes of 1 Wisconsin Highways. 2021. “Milwaukee Freeways: Stadium Freeway” http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/stadium.html 2 Gurda, John. 2022. “Racist planning decisions led Milwaukee’s freeway system along a path of least resistance, with great damage to communities of color.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Published August 9, 2022. https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2022/08/09/racist-freeway-planning-led-damage-milwaukees-freewaysystem/10202078002/ 3 US Census Bureau. 2020. Decennial Census for Race. https://data.census.gov/table?g=1400000US55079006000,55079006100,55079006200,55079009000,5507900910 0,55079009600,55079012300&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1 4 US Census Bureau. 2020. American Community Survey 5-year estimates for Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/table?g=1400000US55079006000,55079006100,55079006200,55079009000,5507900910 0,55079009600,55079012300&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0802 5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Decennial Census for Race. https://data.census.gov/table?g=1400000US55079005900,55079009200,55079009300,55079009400,5507900950 0,55079012400,55079090900,55079091000,55079091100,55079091200&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1 6 US Census Bureau. 2020. American Community Survey 5-year estimates for Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/table?g=1400000US55079005900,55079009200,55079009300,55079009400,5507900950 0,55079012400,55079090900,55079091000,55079091100,55079091200&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0802

5 transportation. 7 The same is only true for 3% of the population living to the west of the WIS-175. 8 Despite the need for multimodal infrastructure along this corridor, WIS-175 was exclusively designed for highspeed, automobile transportation. With a lack of multi-modal access, traveling across the corridor can be difficult and time-consuming without a private vehicle. Insufficient physical connectivity is exacerbated by the poor quality of the existing connections. Pedestrian and bike infrastructure and traffic calming measures are severely lacking at corridor connections, resulting in elevated crash rates. 9 The connectivity and traffic conditions also prevent the surrounding commercial corridors from thriving by deterring foot traffic around businesses and posing safety risks to patrons. The Uptown Crossing Business Improvement District worked with the City of Milwaukee on the WIS 175 Visioning Study in order to address these issues and find ways to improve the environment around their commercial corridor.10 The freeway serves large industrial users such as Molson Coors and Harley Davidson; however, its current design lacks local connections for trucks, directing industrial truck traffic through local residential streets. Lastly, the freeway’s expansive footprint includes large portions of land that could otherwise provide taxgenerating uses that could serve the neighborhood. With the recent appointment of WisDOT Secretary Craig Thompson, there has been an increased focus on progressing multi-modal transportation systems and moving away from solely prioritizing the movement of cars. This is partly evidenced by WisDOT’s initiative to collaborate with the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, and other local stakeholdersto reimagine the WIS-175 highway spur. Now is the time to take advantage of this momentum and recreate this corridor into something that benefits all road users as well as residents in and around the study area. CRITERIA Effectiveness: The preferred alternative must decrease walking travel time by at least 2% points, bike travel time by at least 2% points, and car travel time by at least 10% points. Rationale: There are seven east-west bridged connections across WIS-175 within the study area, and motorized traffic is exclusively permitted on the freeway corridor. This criterion measures the average distance between six points along streets or bike/footpaths. The points were placed at the edge of a .5- mile buffer zone with WIS 175 as the center (see Appendix B, Figure 1). The average distances are converted to travel times by mode—for car (see Appendix B, Figure 2) and for pedestrians and cyclists 7 US Census Bureau. 2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates for Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/table?g=1400000US55079006000,55079006100,55079006200,55079009000,5507900910 0,55079009600,55079012300&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0802 8 US Census Bureau. 2020. American Community Survey 5-year estimates for Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/table?g=1400000US55079005900,55079009200,55079009300,55079009400,5507900950 0,55079012400,55079090900,55079091000,55079091100,55079091200&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0802 9 Milwaukee County Department of Transportation. STH175 Surrounding Neighborhood Crash & Demographic Analysis Map. Updated Thursday, April 21, 2022. 10 Highway WIS 175 Visioning Study. 2017. City of Milwaukee Department of City Development. https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/planning/plans/WashingtonPark/WIS175VisioningStudy FINAL.pdf

6 (see Appendix B, Figure 3)—and a percentage decrease is calculated using the existing conditions as the denominator. Efficiency: The projected construction and design cost of the preferred alternative must not exceed $150 million. Rationale: Since this project is only in the planning and feasibility phase, it has not received funding for design and construction; however, for the project to continue beyond planning, its projected cost should be financially feasible. WisDOT and Milwaukee County Department of Transportation officials have expressed expected budget values ranging from $75 million to $200 million.11 The $150 million threshold will allow creativity in the planning process while maintaining financial viability for the chosen alternative. A cost analysis can be performed using estimates for overall street reconstruction, ground fill, new bridges, retaining walls, utilities, and design engineering costs12 (see Appendix C). Equity: The preferred alternative must improve the average Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) and Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) of WIS-175 and its cross-streets by at least one level. Rationale: By reducing the average LTS and PLTS scores to 2.3 and 1.85 respectfully, the preferred alternative will ensure increased safety for the most disadvantaged road users in the study area. LTS and PLTS measure the road safety conditions for bicyclist and pedestrians based on number of traffic lanes, effective daily traffic (ADT) of vehicles, lane widths, and prevailing speeds (for LTS criteria see Appendix D, Table 1. For PLTS criteria see Appendix D, Table 2). The current design of the corridor prioritizes automobile transportation over other modes and has an average LTS of 3.3 and an average PLTS of 2.85. It was determined, statistically, that LTS influences the severity of outcomes for bicycle crashes. 13 Political Feasibility: The preferred alternative must be approvable by WisDOT, Milwaukee Brewers, and Molson Coors. Rationale: To gain approval from WisDOT, the preferred alternative must reach a threshold of traffic flow, as illustrated by the roadway design criteria table (See Appendix E, Table 1.) Though traffic dispersal is an expected impact of design change, approval of a recommended alternative would mean accommodating several roadway design components. These include being able to accommodate speeds of at least 30 mph, lanes at least 11 ft. wide between Vliet St. and Wisconsin Ave., and medians of at least 6 ft. between Vliet St. and Wisconsin Ave. In addition to WisDOT approval, the preferred alternative must be approvable by powerful stakeholders including Molson Coors, and The Milwaukee Brewers. This translates to no reduction in the access and efficiency to I-94 for Molson Coors. For the Milwaukee Brewers, no significant reduction in Southbound access and efficiency through the corridor must be achieved. 11 Doug Cain via email, Robert Gutierrez in guest presentation discussion. Planning Policy Analysis, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Fall 2022. 12 Estimates based on previous WisDOT construction projects, provided by Doug Cain, WisDOT Project Manager via email on November 28, 2022. 13 Chen, C., Anderson, J., Wang, H., Wang, Y., Vogt, R., Hernandez, S., 2017. How bicycle level of traffic stress correlate with reported cyclist accidents injury severities: A geospatial and mixed logit analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 108, 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.001.

7 ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: At-Grade Boulevard This alternative recommends using local, modern, and historic precedents as inspiration for a grand boulevard built at the grade of the surrounding city blocks. The goal is to create a roadway design that respects and restores the urban fabric while increasing safety, providing multimodal access, and catalyzing economic development. Segment 1, extending from W. Wisconsin Ave. to W. State St., recommends a gradually descending ramp distributed over a distance from W. Wells St. to W. State St. This distance is just over 1,300 ft and resembles the Hoan Bridge exit at E. Clybourn St. on I-793 over the Italian Community Center in the Third Ward. In this segment, the highway would be brought down to grade and connect at W. State St. for a new signalized intersection. The intersection creates access for industrial traffic on W. State St. while working with the spatial constraints of the Menomonee River and existing railroad tracks. The on-ramp at N. 45th Pl. and W. Wells St. would be partially rededicated to the Hank Aaron State Trail and a pedestrianonly bridge would be constructed to cross the valley parallel to the ramp (see Appendix F, Figure 1). Segment 2, stretching from W. State St. to W. Vliet St., recommends creating a four-lane boulevard within the current WIS-175 footprint (see Appendix F, Figure 2). Precedents for high-traffic boulevards include N. Sherman Blvd. located northeast of the study area; however, the general road width and median of this boulevard is modeled after E. Newberry Blvd. located on Milwaukee’s East Side. It includes four 11- foot travel lanes, a 50-foot median boulevard, two 9-foot parking lanes, with one on either side, and a two-way separated cycle track along the eastern edge. The total distance is roughly 1,900 ft. long. A signalized intersection would connect W. Juneau Ave to W. Martin Drive. The recommended speed limit for this portion of the alternative is 30 mph. This alternative also recommends dedicating the center of the boulevard through the entire corridor to a streetcar line that would connect W. Lisbon Ave. to the W. Wisconsin Ave. bus rapid transit (BRT). (see Appendix F, Figure 3) To the East of the boulevard would be a two-way cycle track separated by green space. The rededicated right-of-way in Segment 2 restores the street grid with the surrounding neighborhoods, and approximately 11 acres, or 4 city blocks, would be opened up from the reconfiguration. A significant amount of infill material would be required to bring the boulevard up to grade at W. Vliet St. Segment 3 extends from W. Vliet St. to W. Lloyd St. and runs along the western edge of Washington Park. The boulevard continues through this section of the study area (see Appendix F, Figure 4). The boulevard and cycle track are constructed at-grade with Washington Heights and Washington Park. The cycle track connects to existing trails within the park near Olmsted Way. There would be signalized intersections for thru-traffic located at W. Washington Blvd. and W. Lloyd St. All existing east-west streets in this segment would have vehicular access to the boulevard with bike and pedestrian access into the park. The streetcar route would continue to run through the center of the boulevard in this segment. Five large parcels of land would also be created between the boulevard and N. 47th St. dedicated for housing or other uses. Segment 4 spans from W. Lloyd St. to W. Lisbon Ave. In this segment the at-grade boulevard veers northeasterly to meet W. Lisbon Ave at a perpendicular angle to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. (See Appendix F, Figure 5). A proposed streetcar transit hub, accompanied by a plaza and commercial building, are to be located within the reclaimed right-of-way adjacent to the intersection. This would serve as a gathering place and multimodal access point.

8 Alternative 2: Parallel One-Way Streets This alternative proposes constructing two parallel, one-way streets at the edges of the existing WIS-175 right-of-way, creating for space between these streets for development and green infrastructure (see Appendix G, Figure 1). These one-way streets will be at grade with the surrounding street grid where feasible, and speeds are reduced to 35mph and 25mph in different locations in the corridor. With the reallocation of space, there is an opportunity to incorporate protected bicycle lanes and a new northsouth MCTS bus route. Prospect and Farwell Avenues on the east side of Milwaukee serve as a precedent for this design configuration. In Segment 1 of the corridor, the roadway diverges into two one-way, at-grade streets from W. Wisconsin Ave to the north (see Appendix G, Figure 2). This would create four signaled intersections – two on W. Wisconsin Ave and two on W. Wells St. – to control traffic and indicate the shift from higher to lower speeds for northbound motorists. Since the right-of-way is narrower in this segment, the space between the one-way streets can be utilized for stormwater management or a more robust transit hub along W. Wisconsin Ave. A north-south bus route on the reimagined corridor would be harmonious with the upcoming MCTS East-West Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line on W. Wisconsin Ave. To pass the railroad tracks and Menomonee River to the north, the streets would converge again at the north end of Segment 1. After passing over the existing railroad tracks, the street would ramp down to meet State Street at grade (see Appendix G, Figure 3). This new intersection would create more efficient access to the Molson Coors, Harley Davidson, and other industrial tenants in the surrounding area while mitigating truck traffic in residential neighborhoods. The streets will gradually diverge again into one-way streets, coming to grade and creating a new east-west grid connection at W. Vliet St. In both Segments 1 and 2, streets would include 3 travel lanes in each direction and have a speed limit of 35mph. From W. Vliet St., the parallel one-way streets would remain at grade to the north through Segments 3 and 4, where the speed limit would be reduced to 25mph (see Appendix G, Figure 4 and Figure 5). N. 47th St. would become the southbound one-way street on the west side of the corridor, while the northbound street would become a new street along the western edge of Washington Park. Bringing these streets to grade allows for three new east-west grid connections at W. Cherry St., W. Galena St., and W. Vine St. Depending on traffic volumes, these intersections could be signalized or have stop signs for east-west traffic only. With 550,000 square feet of additional right-of-way, there is space for development in between these streets. Since the existing land use is primarily residential, low- to mid-density residential and limited mixed used development would be most appropriate. Given the decrease in traffic volumes in this section14, these streets would include two travel lanes and one parking lane. Alternative 3: Land Bridges This alternative proposes constructing a series of land bridges over the existing WIS-175 freeway (see Appendix H, Figure 1). These land bridge connections improve the safety and quality of existing east-west freeway crossings and will help to reconnect the existing street grid over the freeway. The extended bridge connections will incorporate complete street design features and will open parcels for development, civic 14 Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Traffic Count Map with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT.) [interactive GIS map] https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e12a4f051de4ea9bc865ec6393731f8

9 services, and green space. The design alters the right-of-way of WIS-175 to slow traffic heading towards W. Lisbon Ave and proposes bike infrastructure that links to the Hank Aaron trail to the south. Segment 1 proposes a land bridge that connects from the south side of W. Wisconsin Ave. to the North side of W. Wells St. (see Appendix H, Figure 2). This will reclaim approximately 1.8 acres of land which can be developed for medium-density, commercial or residential uses. Greenspace would be designated to complement the planned Wisconsin-Bluemound BRT bus stop. The changes to the cross-section of W. Wisconsin Ave. include continuing the median over the bridge and adding a parkway buffer between the sidewalk and oncoming traffic. The bike lanes that run through the corridor will be maintained and connected to the added north-south bike path that runs the length of WIS-175. The exit and entry ramps to access the freeway will remain unchanged. Moving north over the Miller Valley, W. Martin Dr. and W. Juneau Ave. will intersect at-grade of WIS-175 and continue through to meet their counterparts to the west (See Appendix H, Figure 3). W. Martin Dr. will develop into a boulevard that runs along the south end of Wick field. W. Juneau Ave. will ramp down past N Alois St. to complete the street grid. The entry to the freeway corridor will change from a set of ramps that begin and end in the adjacent neighborhoods and convert to a signalized intersection. The entry and exit ramps connecting N. Alois St. and W. Martin Dr. will be removed and replaced with a singleentry ramp running from the east side of State St. to the southbound lane of WIS-175. This altered freeway entry will exist primarily to bring freight from the north park of Molson Coors to their southbound shipping lane. The signalized intersection will replace all other removed entrances and exits. Section three calls for widening the two east-to-west bridge crossings at W. Lloyd St. and W. Washington Blvd. and filling the WIS 175 from the current freeway entrance at W. Vine St. until the freeway terminates at W. Lisbon Ave. (see Appendix H, Figure 4). The cross-section of the Lloyd St. bridge proposes additional diagonal parking options to accommodate police vehicle parking on the street. A green median and parkway will be incorporated to the existing right-of-way. W. Washington Blvd. will extend the current boulevard design across the bridge to create a gateway to enter the park before the road returns to Olmsted Way’s current configuration. W. Vine St. will connect to a signalized intersection on the filled portion of WIS-175. The final section proposes that the freeway will end at grade connecting to Lisbon Ave. (see Appendix H, Figure 5). This area will accommodate a signalized intersection at W. Lloyd St. and a stop sign intersection at W. Garfield Ave. The split portion of the freeway will straighten and connect to Lisbon, normalizing the street intersection. This stretch of freeway will slow cars down as they travel north from the stadium, slowing vehicles from 45 to 35 mph as it terminates. Alternative 4: Inset Boulevard with Pedestrian Connections This alternative proposes an inset, multi-modal boulevard using the existing grade of the WIS-175 corridor (see Appendix I, Figure 1). It improves the east-west bicycle and pedestrian connections through a series of stair and bridge elements. A north-south BRT route linking to the Wisconsin Ave BRT is proposed as well as a two-way cycle track parallel to the corridor which connects to a newly established bike network. This alternative provides users with a variety of transportation modes, increases neighborhood connectivity and access, opens land for greenspace and redevelopment, while minimizing the need for grade changes and exorbitant engineering efforts.

10 WIS-175 transitions from a six-lane freeway to a boulevard in Segment 1 of this alternative (see Appendix I, Figure 2). There will be three travel lanes at 11 ft wide and one bus lane at 12 ft wide in each direction, as well as a median. Speeds will reduce to 35 mph along the entirety of the corridor. Existing on- and offramps will be designated for bus lanes and bicycle infrastructure. These redesigned routes will connect transit and other modes to W. Wisconsin Ave. and the future East-West BRT line. Passing over the Menomonee River and existing railroad tracks, a bridge in Segment 2 includes centrally placed on- and off-ramps connecting motorists directly to State St (see Appendix I, Figure 3). This would establish direct industrial truck access to Molson Coors and Harley Davidson. A separate bridge would be constructed to the east of the boulevard for cyclists and pedestrians only. As the boulevard returns to the existing grade north of W. State St., it narrows to two travel lanes in each direction. The existing freeway ramps north of W. State St. would be demolished and a signalized intersection connecting W. Martin Dr. through to N. Alios St. would be built in their place. Approximately four acres of reclaimed land is designated for green space or green infrastructure, bridging the adjacent neighborhood to Wick Field. Stairwells are constructed to create a pedestrian connection from W. Juneau Ave and N. 47th St. Segment 3 is the most distinguished portion of this alternative due to its unique design as a grand boulevard that is below-grade (See Appendix I, Figure 4). Between the inset boulevard and N. 47th St., the existing sloped land is opened up for two-story, mixed-use development. Due to the existing slope, developments appear shorter on the west side (N. 47th St.), reducing the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Commercial and office uses will face the inset boulevard, while the upper levels would be designated as multifamily residential. A series of twelve stairwells, three pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and two pedestrian crossings are included to establish new access points to the inset boulevard and Washington Park. Midway through this stretch, a signalized intersection and newly constructed roadway replaces the existing northbound off-ramp that connects the corridor to Olmsted Way. The northbound W. Lloyd St. off-ramp is replaced with a cycle track extension into Washington Park. Approaching W. Lloyd St., the inset boulevard comes up-to-grade to meet a prominent roundabout located at W. Lloyd St. (see Appendix I, Figure 5). Like Olmsted’s Columbus Circle at the southwestern tip of Central Park in Manhattan15, this roundabout creates a prominent gathering point into Washington Park enhancing Olmsted’s vision. North of the traffic circle, N. 47th St. and N 46th St. are converted into one-way streets, with the area in the center being designated for a grand pedestrian greenway. This space will act as a northern extension of Washington Park and is anchored by a fountain similar to Buckingham Fountain of Grant Park in Chicago. 16 EVALUATION Alternative 1: At-Grade Boulevard 15 Columbus Circle. New York City Department of Public Parks & Recreation. https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/central-park/highlights/7738 16 Clarence F. Buckingham Memorial Fountain. Chicago Park District. https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/parksfacilities/clarence-f-buckingham-memorial-fountain

11 Effectiveness: Pass. This alternative would meet the critical thresholds for decreasing driving, biking and walk times. Through the evaluation process a 12-percentage point decrease in car travel time was observed, which exceeds the 10% threshold. Evaluation of biking and walk times showed a 2-percentage point and 3 percentage point respectively. This also meets the thresholds for reduction in travel time which were 2 percentage points for biking and 2 percentage points for walking (see Appendix B, Table 1) Efficiency: Pass. This alternative achieves its goals of increasing connectivity and multimodal access while falling well underneath the maximum cost of $150 million. The total cost is estimated to be $63.6 million. Most of that would come from roadway design with a cost of $22.5 million or 35%. Additional high-cost portions of the recommendation include fill, which is estimated to be $16 million, and bridge reconstruction, estimated to cost $14.1 million (see Appendix C, Table 1). Equity: Pass. This alternative exceeds the thresholds outlined by the equity criterion. The average decrease in LTS level is 1.6, well above the 1.0 required to pass this criterion. The most significant changes in LTS occurred in Segment 4 from Lloyd St. to Lisbon Ave. The average PLTS decrease was 1.2, also exceeding the 1.0 threshold (see Appendix D, Table 2). Political Feasibility: Pass. This alternative includes 11-foot travel lanes, a 50-foot median, and a 30-mph speed limit. All of these exceed the minimums set by the political feasibility criterion. With the exits created at State St., the efficiency of shipping for Molson Coors could be increased and would be extremely unlikely to be hindered. The travel time through the corridor from North to South to reach Miller Park would result in insignificant change. Speeds would be reduced, and three traffic lights would be added. However, efficiency would be such that the change would not exceed the maximum threshold. Alternative 2: Parallel One-way Streets Effectiveness: Fail. This alternative fails to decrease the travel time for cyclists and pedestrians by the required percentage points. Based on our analysis, a decrease of 12 percentage points is observed for car travel but only 0.4 percentage points for cycling and walking (See Appendix B, Table 1). Despite this small decrease, the new connections formed in this alternative would likely have a positive benefit for those living closest to the existing corridor. Efficiency: Pass. The estimated cost for design and construction of this alternative is roughly $58 million (See Appendix C, Table 3). This includes 1.5 miles of reconstruction, 2 million cubic yards of ground fill, one reconstructed bridge, two major retaining walls, and 13 potential signalized intersections. While other costs may be incurred that are not covered in this analysis, the projected cost falls far below the high-end limit of $150 million provided by WisDOT officials. Equity: Pass. The alternative is expected to increase the average LTS and PLTS scores to 1.89 and 1.61 respectively (See Appendix D Table 5.) The addition of separated and protected bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, and buffers helped increase the safety of the streets in this alternative for vulnerable road users. These elements are suggested for streets that cross the corridor as well, improving the safety of the street system around the corridor. Altogether, the Bicycle and Pedestrian LTS scores could be improved by 1.6 and 1.2, respectively, with these design changes. Political Feasibility: Maybe. This alternative creates a new at grade intersection at State Street, which would increase truck access for Molson Coors and Harley Davidson operations. Other than this beneficial connection, it does not disrupt current access to those major industrial tenants. The streets do not

12 incorporate all roadway elements outline in the Roadway Design Criteria table, however. Speed limits for Segments 3 and 4 will be posted at 25 mph to slow traffic near residential and park uses, which does not meet the minimum threshold of 30mph for arterial and collector streets. Otherwise, the roadway meets the threshold for lane widths (11ft) and the requirement for medians does not apply for one-way traffic. If WisDOT is open to allowing slower speeds on the northern end of the corridor, the alternative may pass this criterion. Alternative 3: Cap Over Freeway Effectiveness: Fail. This alternative fails to decrease the travel time for cyclists and pedestrians by the required percentage points. While improvements are made to the entries, exits and bridge crossings, any new connections have a negligible effect on multimodal travel times. New connections are made through W. Juneau St. and W. Martin Dr. though these connections provide better access to the freeway they primarily improve car traffic connections through the study area (see Appendix B, Table 1) Efficiency: Fail. The estimated cost to construct extended bridges at every major bridge crossing on WIS175 exceeds $150 million dollars. The cost to add caps to minor sections above the freeway with no street level improvements adds $718 per square foot to the construction cost.17 In addition to filling the last mile of WIS-175 to grade new road construction brings this alternative well above the target construction costs (see Appendix C, Table 3). Equity: Fail. This alternative proposes an increase in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure through the corridor to the north and south; however, it does not give a ubiquitous treatment to cyclists the entire study area. These bridge caps can only add infrastructure to a limited segment of road and thus cannot propose many meaningful safety improvements to these corridors. This results in an improvement of LTS by 0.8 and a PLTS by 0.75. This does not pass the threshold of 1 (see Appendix D, Table 4). Political Feasibility: Pass. This alternative proposes infrastructure and additions to the corridor that meet the required lane widths and traffic speeds expected by WisDOT. Speeds through the redesigned WIS-175 don’t fall below 35 mph. Additionally, this alternative adds freeway connections directly to state street to better accommodate traffic from Molson Coors and Harley Davidson and retains ramps from both Wisconsin and Wells streets. Alternative 4: Inset Boulevard with Pedestrian Connections Effectiveness: Pass. This alternative sees a 4-percentage point decrease in walk time, a 7-percentage point decrease in bike time, and a 14-percentage point decrease in car travel time. (See Appendix B, Table 1). Efficiency: Pass. The estimated cost for design and construction of this alternative is roughly $59.1 million (See Appendix C, Table 4). This includes 1.85 miles of reconstruction, 180,000 cubic yards of ground fill, two reconstructed bridges, three pedestrian bridges, one retaining wall spanning a block, and 12 17 Harnik, Peter, and Ben Welle. “In the United States, a Movement Is Underway to Conceal Urban Highways with Parks.” U R B A N LA N D, April 2007, 4.

13 signalized intersections. Other costs may be incurred that are not included in this analysis, however the projected cost falls under the $150 million budget cap provided by WisDOT. Equity: Pass. Due to the major increase in pedestrian bicycle infrastructure along the corridor the LTS and PLTS improve notably. The estimated average LTS score improved by 1.7, from 3.4 to 1.7, and the estimated average PLTS score improved by 1.3, from 2.85 to 1.55. (See Appendix D, Table 5) Political Feasibility: Pass. This alternative provides lanes and boulevards at widths required by WisDOT. Speeds through the corridor are kept at least 35 mph. This alternative also creates a new corridor access point for Molson Coors and Harley Davidson to use for a more direct shipping route for their facilities, which would see likely see support from these stakeholders. EVALUATION MATRIX Effectiveness Efficiency Equity Political Feasibility Must decrease walk time 2%, bike time 2%, and drive time 10% points Must not exceed $150 million for projected construction and design costs Must improve average LTS and PLTS by at least one level Must be supported by WisDOT and stakeholders Alternative #1 Pass Pass Pass Pass At-Grade Boulevard 3% decrease in walk time 2% decrease in bike time 12% decrease in car travel time Cost estimate is $63.6 million LTS and PLTS improved by 1.6 and 1.2 respectively, both achieving the threshold of 1 Likely to have the support of WisDOT and other relevant stakeholders as it does not significantly reduce efficiency Alternative #2 Fail Pass Pass Maybe Parallel OneWay Streets 0.4% decrease in walk and bike time 12% decrease in drive time Cost estimate is $57.8 million LTS and PLTS improved by 1.4 and 1.2 respectively, both achieving the threshold of 1 Speeds slower than WisDOT required 30mph; does not reduce access for stakeholders Alternative #3 Fail Fail Fail Pass Land Bridges The added connections do not reach the desired improvements in travel time Cost estimate is $180 million LTS and PLTS improved by 0.8 and 0.75 respectfully, neither achieve the threshold of 1 likely would be supported by WisDOT or other stakeholders as it retains access to Molson Coors & Harley Davidson Alternative #4 Pass Pass Pass Pass

14 Inset Boulevard with Ped Connections 4% decrease in walk time, 7% decrease in bike time, 14% decrease in car travel time Cost estimate is $59.1 million LTS and PLTS improved by 1.7 and 1.3 respectfully, both achieving the threshold of 1 Likely to have the support of WisDOT and other relevant stakeholders as it does not significantly reduce efficiency RECOMMENDATION Based on our analysis and evaluation, we recommend pursuing Alternative 4: Inset Boulevard with Pedestrian Connections. While two of our proposed alternatives pass all criteria, we believe the inset boulevard design has greater benefits with cost savings, travel time reductions, bicycle and pedestrian safety measures, and a minimal impact to the surrounding context. This alternative maintains the existing depressed grade, therefore saving construction costs, but recreates the corridor into a boulevard that accommodates multiple modes of transportation and new development opportunities. These alternative increases multi-modal access through and across the corridor by incorporating several design elements and reducing the travel time for all modes. Pedestrian and bicycle bridges across the corridor in Segment 3 physically connect the western neighborhoods with Washington Park. A two-way cycle track gives cyclists a new opportunity to traverse the corridor safely and comfortably, while having access to the park and nearby trails. This redesign would place emphasis on local movement, rather than regional commuting by creating new commercial storefronts along the boulevard in Segment 3. Simultaneously, new connections that accommodate industrial traffic are incorporated into the design in Segments 1 and 2. Careful consideration should be given to development plans for the newly created parcels in this design. Since these new parcels would be located across the street from existing single- and two- family land uses, resident feedback should be considered to determine appropriate development scale, intensity, and purpose. WisDOT should consult the City of Milwaukee for the most appropriate approach for the transfer of land ownership for these parcels, as City planners have a vested interest in guiding development in an equitable way that benefits the surrounding community. While the inset boulevard saves construction costs associated with bringing the street to grade, it limits cyclists and pedestrians from easily accessing the corridor itself. Bridges establish connections across the boulevard, but pedestrians must use stair and ramp connections to get down to the boulevard. The construction of these elements can be costly and may be difficult to navigate for pedestrians using assistive mobility devices. MONITORING There is a high need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities along this corridor and these elements shall not be removed during the value engineering stages. To ensure the success of this proposed redesign, a priority to maintain multi-modal infrastructure within the final design needs to be established. Following the anticipated reconstruction of the WIS-175 and I-94 interchange, traffic behaviors and speeds should be monitored to understand whether the Diverging Diamond Interchange in fact slows

15 down motorists moving northbound into the WIS-175 corridor. If traffic speeds are high, roadway designs that incorporate traffic calming should be considered for the segment south of this report’s study area. Otherwise, a harsh transition from high speeds into the lower-speed boulevard may be dangerous for users. Traffic counts should be taken for cars, bikes, and pedestrians to assess whether the roadway is designed to accommodate all its users. WisDOT officials have expressed the possibility of transferring jurisdiction of the road to Milwaukee County, and lower automobile volumes may support that change. Additionally, if pedestrian or bicycle counts increase drastically, design elements should be reassessed in detail to determine safety levels.

16 APPENDIX A – EXISTING MAPS Figure 1 – Study Area - Existing Conditions

17 Figure 2 - Segment 1 - Wisconsin & Cass Figure 3 - Segment 2 - State & Martin Drive

18 Figure 4 – Segment 3 - Olmstead Way & Washington Drive Figure 5 - Segment 4 - Lloyd Street & Lisbon Avenue

19 APPEDIX B – TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS Figure 1: Effectiveness Measure zones (0.5 mi from WIS-175)

20 Figure 2: Effectiveness Criteria Paths (Car)

21 Figure 3: Effectiveness Criteria Paths (Pedestrian and Bicycle)

22 Zone Trips Cars (miles) Bike & Ped (miles) Zone Trips Cars (miles) Bike & Ped (miles) Zone Trips Travel Time: Cars (miles) Bike & Ped (miles) Zone Trips Cars (miles) Bike & Ped (miles) 1_2 0.5 0.5 1_2 0.5 0.5 1_2 0.5 0.5 1_2 0.5 0.5 1_3 1.07 1.07 1_3 1.07 1.07 1_3 1.07 1.07 1_3 1.07 1.07 1_4 1.4 1.4 1_4 1.4 1.4 1_4 1.4 1.4 1_4 1.4 1.4 1_5 1.71 1.71 1_5 1.71 1.71 1_5 1.74 1.65 1_5 1.73 1.73 1_6 2.28 2.28 1_6 2.28 2.28 1_6 2.22 2.18 1_6 2.13 2.13 2_1 0.5 0.5 2_1 0.5 0.5 2_1 0.5 0.5 2_1 0.5 0.5 2_3 0.57 0.57 2_3 0.57 0.57 2_3 0.57 0.57 2_3 0.57 0.57 2_4 1.8 1.8 2_4 1.8 1.8 2_4 1.7 1.8 2_4 1.58 1.58 2_5 1.55 1.3 2_5 1.55 1.3 2_5 1.65 1.25 2_5 1.55 1.26 2_6 1.68 1.26 2_6 1.65 1.6 2_6 1.66 1.66 2_6 1.5 1.45 3_1 1.07 1.07 3_1 1.07 1.07 3_1 1.07 1.07 3_1 1.07 1.07 3_2 0.57 0.57 3_2 0.57 0.57 3_2 0.57 0.57 3_2 0.57 0.57 3_4 2.25 1.97 3_4 2.25 2.1 3_4 2.56 2.1 3_4 2.17 1.89 3_5 1.37 1.37 3_5 1.37 1.37 3_5 1.42 1.37 3_5 1.37 1.37 3_6 1.13 1.13 3_6 1.13 1.13 3_6 1.13 1.13 3_6 1.13 1.13 4_1 1.4 1.4 4_1 1.4 1.4 4_1 1.4 1.4 4_1 1.4 1.4 4_2 1.8 1.8 4_2 1.8 1.8 4_2 1.7 1.8 4_2 1.58 1.58 4_3 2.25 1.97 4_3 2.25 2.1 4_3 2.56 2.1 4_3 2.17 1.89 4_5 0.84 0.84 4_5 0.84 0.84 4_5 0.83 0.83 4_5 0.84 0.84 4_6 1.38 1.38 4_6 1.38 1.38 4_6 1.38 1.4 4_6 1.38 1.38 5_1 1.71 1.71 5_1 1.71 1.71 5_1 1.74 1.65 5_1 1.73 1.73 5_2 1.55 1.27 5_2 1.55 1.3 5_2 1.65 1.25 5_2 1.55 1.26 5_3 1.37 1.37 5_3 1.37 1.37 5_3 1.42 1.37 5_3 1.37 1.37 5_4 0.84 0.84 5_4 0.84 0.84 5_4 0.83 0.83 5_4 0.84 0.84 5_6 0.58 0.58 5_6 0.58 0.58 5_6 0.58 0.58 5_6 0.58 0.58 6_1 2.28 2.28 6_1 2.28 2.28 6_1 2.22 2.18 6_1 2.13 2.13 6_2 1.68 1.26 6_2 1.65 1.6 6_2 1.66 1.66 6_2 1.5 1.45 6_3 1.13 1.13 6_3 1.13 1.13 6_3 1.13 1.13 6_3 1.13 1.13 6_4 1.38 1.38 6_4 1.38 1.38 6_4 1.38 1.4 6_4 1.38 1.38 6_5 0.58 0.58 6_5 0.58 0.58 6_5 0.58 0.58 6_5 0.58 0.58 Average Distance (Car) 1.340666667 Average Distance (Car) 1.338666667 Average Distance (Car) 1.36067 Average Distance (Car) 1.3 Average Distance (Bike Ped) 1.276333333 Average Distance (Bike Ped) 1.308666667 Average Distance (Bike Ped) 1.29933 Average Distance (Bike Ped) 1.25867 Average Travel Time Car 3.003093333 Average Travel Time Car 2.998613333 Average Travel Time Car 3.04789 Average Travel Time Car 2.912 Average Travel Time Bike 5.424416667 Average Travel Time Bike 5.561833333 Average Travel Time Bike 5.52217 Average Travel Time Bike 5.34933 Average Travel Time Walk 25.52666667 Average Travel Time Walk 26.17333333 Average Travel Time Walk 25.9867 Average Travel Time Walk 25.1733 % Decrease in travel time (car) 11.93% % Decrease in travel time (car) 12% % Decrease in travel time (car) 10.62% % Decrease in travel time (car) 14.60% % Decrease in travel time (bike) 1.97% % Decrease in travel time (bike) 0.36% % Decrease in travel time (bike) 1.07% % Decrease in travel time (bike) 7.48% % Decrease in travel time (walk) 2.82% % Decrease in travel time (walk) 0.36% % Decrease in travel time (walk) 0.20% % Decrease in travel time (walk) 4.16% difference in travel time (car) 0.406906667 difference in travel time (car) 0.411386667 difference in travel time (car) 0.36211 difference in travel time (car) 0.498 difference in travel time (bike) 0.109083333 difference in travel time (bike) -0.028333333 difference in travel time (bike) 0.01133 difference in travel time (bike) 0.18417 difference in travel time (walk) 0.739933333 difference in travel time (walk) 0.093266667 difference in travel time (walk) 0.27993 difference in travel time (walk) 1.09327 Alternative 1 - At-Grade Boulevard Alternative 2 - Parallel One-Way Streets Alternative 3 - Land Bridges Alternative 4 - Inset Boulevard Table 1 - Effectiveness Mode Travel Time Calculations

23 APPENDIX C – COST ANALYSIS Table 12. Alternative 1 cost estimates. Alternative 1: At-Grade Boulevard Units Cost/Unit Cost Roadway Construction (per mile) 1.5 $15,000,000 $22,500,000.00 Fill (per cubic yard) 2,000,000 $8 $16,000,000.00 New Bridges (per square foot) 118,000 $120 $14,160,000.00 Retaining Walls (per square foot) 0 $130 $0.00 Signalized Intersections 6 $250,000 $1,500,000.00 $54,160,000.00 Utilities (1-2% construction cost) $812,400.00 Design Engineering (8% construction cost) $4,332,800.00 Construction Engineering (8% construction cost) $4,332,800.00 TOTAL COST: $63,638,000.00 Table 23. Alternative 2 cost estimates. Alternative 2: Parallel One-Ways Units Cost/Unit Cost Roadway Construction (per mile) 1.5 $15,000,000 $22,500,000.00 Fill (per cubic yard) 2,000,000 $8 $16,000,000.00 New Bridges (per square foot) 54,000 $120 $6,480,000.00 Retaining Walls (per square foot) 7,500 $130 $975,000.00 Signalized Intersections 13 $250,000 $3,250,000.00 $49,205,000.00 Utilities (1-2% construction cost) $738,075.00 Design Engineering (8% construction cost) $3,936,400.00 Construction Engineering (8% construction cost) $3,936,400.00 TOTAL COST: $57,815,875.00 Table 34. Alternative 3 cost estimates. Alternative 3 - Land Bridges Units Cost/Unit Cost Roadway Construction (per mile) 1.54 $15,000,000 $23,100,000.00

24 Fill (per cubic yard) 45,000 $8 $360,000.00 Land Bridges (per square foot) 189000 $718 $135,702,000.00 Retaining Walls (per square foot) $130 $0.00 Signalized Intersections 4 $250,000 $1,000,000.00 $160,162,000.00 Utilities (1-2% construction cost) $2,402,430.00 Design Engineering (8% construction cost) $12,812,960.00 Construction Engineering (8% construction cost) $12,812,960.00 TOTAL COST: $188,190,350.00 Table 45. Alternative 4 cost estimates. Alternative 4- Inset Boulevard Units Cost/Unit Cost Roadway Construction (per mile) 1.85 $15,000,000 $27,750,000.00 Fill (per cubic yard) 180000 $8 $1,440,000.00 New Bridges (per square foot) 137000 $120 $16,440,000.00 Retaining Walls (per square foot) 13020 $130 $1,692,600.00 Signalized Intersections 12 $250,000 $3,000,000.00 $50,322,600.00 Utilities (1-2% construction cost) $754,839.00 Design Engineering (8% construction cost) $4,025,808.00 Construction Engineering (8% construction cost) $4,025,808.00 TOTAL COST: $59,129,055.00

25 APPENDIX D – EQUITY ANALYSIS Table 1: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)18 18Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, version 2.2. May 2022. https://cpb-usw2.wpmucdn.com/sites.northeastern.edu/dist/e/618/files/2014/05/LTS-Tables-v2.2.pdf

26 Table 2: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS). This table was developed using sidewalk widths provided by the City of Milwaukee Street Scape Guidelines19 19 Streetscape Guidelines. 2011. City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works. https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/planning/plans/Streetscape/pdf/2011.05.09_Milw_Gui delines.pdf buffer width Path width 0 - 28.5 28.5 - 33.5 33.5 - 38.5 38.5 - 43.5 43.5 -48.5 48.5 + 7+ ft PLTS 1 PLTS 1 PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 less than 7 ft PLTS 1 PLTS 1 PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 7+ ft PLTS 1 PLTS 1 PLTS 2 PLTS3 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 less than 7 ft PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 7+ ft PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 less than 7 ft PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 n/a no path PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) Conventional pedestrian path and traffic buffer NOTES: 1. A traffic buffer can be defined as a road verge, parking lane, bicycle lane, railing, etc. If a buffer is present use Convential Pedestrian Path with a Traffic Buffer Criteria 2. A minimum clear sidewalk width of 5 feet is standard in the City of Milwaukee, and a minimum 3 feet clear sidewalk width is required per the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. For widths narrower than 3 ft use Mixed Traffic criteria 8+ ft Less than 8 ft Prevailing Speed (mph) no buffer

27 Segment 1 LTS PLTS STH 175 4 4 W. Wisconsin Ave. 4 3 W. Wells St. 3 3 N. 46th St 3 3 N. 45th Pl 3 3 Segment 2 LTS PLTS STH 175 4 4 W. State St. 3 3 W. Martin Dr. 3 1 N. Alois St. 4 4 N. 46th St. 3 2 Segment 3 LTS PLTS STH 175 4 4 W. Vliet St 2 2 N. 47th St 4 3 Olmsted Wy 3 1 Segment 4 LTS PLTS STH 175 4 4 W. Lloyd St. 3 3 N. 47th St. 2 2 N. 46th St. 4 3 W. Garfield Ave. 2 1 W. Lisbon Ave. 4 4 Corridor Average 3.3 2.85 Existing Conditions Segment 1 LTS PLTS STH 175 1 1 W. Wisconsin Ave. 4 3 W. Wells St. 3 3 N. 46th St 3 3 N. 45th Pl 1 2 Segment 2 LTS PLTS STH 175 1 1 W. State St. 3 3 W. Martin Dr. 1 1 N. Alois St. 1 1 N. 46th St. 3 2 Segment 3 LTS PLTS STH 175 1 1 W. Vliet St 2 2 N. 47th St 1 1 Olmsted Wy 1 1 Segment 4 LTS PTLS STH 175 1 1 W. Lloyd St. 1 1 N. 47th St. 1 1 N. 46th St. 1 1 W. Garfield Ave. 1 1 W. Lisbon Ave. 3 3 Corridor Average 1.7 1.65 Alternative 1 - At-Grade Boulevard Table 3: Existing LTS and PLTS Table 4: Alternative 1 LTS and PLTS

28 Segment 1 LTS PLTS STH 175 2 2 W. Wisconsin Ave. 2 2 W. Wells St. 2 1 N. 46th St 2 2 N. 45th Pl 3 3 Segment 2 LTS PLTS STH 175 2 2 W. State St. 2 2 W. Martin Dr. 3 1 N. 46th St. 3 2 Segment 3 LTS PLTS N. 47th St. (SB) 1 1 N. 46th St. (NB) 1 1 W. Vliet St 2 2 Olmsted Wy 1 1 Segment 4 LTS PLTS N. 47th St. (SB) 1 1 N. 46th St. (NB) 1 1 W. Lloyd St. 1 1 W. Garfield Ave. 2 1 W. Lisbon Ave. 3 3 Corridor Average 1.89 1.61 Alternative 2 - Parallel OneWay Streets Segment 1 LTS PLTS STH 175 4 4 W. Wisconsin Ave. 3 3 W. Wells St. 2 2 N. 46th St 2 2 N. 45th Pl 2 2 Segment 2 LTS PLTS STH 175 4 4 W. State St. 3 2 W. Martin Dr. 2 1 N. Alois St. 3 3 N. 46th St. 3 2 Segment 3 LTS PLTS STH 175 3 3 W. Vliet St 2 2 N. 47th St 2 1 Olmsted Wy 1 1 Segment 4 LTS PLTS STH 175 3 3 W. Lloyd St. 2 1 N. 47th St. 2 1 N. 46th St. 1 1 W. Garfield Ave. 2 1 W. Lisbon Ave. 4 3 Corridor Average 2.5 2.1 Alternative 3 - Land Bridges Table 5: Alternative 2 LTS and PLTS Table 6: Alternative 3 LTS and PLTS

29 Segment 1 LTS PLTS STH 175 4 4 W. Wisconsin Ave. 4 3 W. Wells St. 1 1 N. 46th St 3 2 N. 45th Pl 1 1 Segment 2 LTS PLTS STH 175 2 2 W. State St. 1 1 W. Martin Dr. 1 1 N. Alois St. 1 1 N. 46th St. 3 2 Segment 3 LTS PLTS STH 175 2 2 W. Vliet St 1 1 New Road 1 1 N. 47th St 1 1 Olmsted Wy 1 1 Segment 4 LTS PLTS W. Lloyd St. 1 1 N. 47th St. 1 1 N. 46th St. 1 1 W. Garfield Ave. 2 1 W. Lisbon Ave. 2 3 Corridor Average 1.7 1.55 Alternative 4 - Inset Boulevard Table 6: Alternative 4 LTS and LPS

30 APPENDIX E – POLITICAL FEASIBILITY Table 1 - Roadway Capacity Matrix

31 APPENDIX F – ALTERNATIVE 1 Figure 1: Alternative 1 - At Grade Boulevard

32 Figure 2: Segment 1 - Wisconsin & Cass Figure 3: Segment 2 - State & Martin Drive

33 Figure 6 - Streetcar boulevard precedent (Prague, Czech Republic).

34 Figure 4: Segment 3 - Olmstead Way & Washington Drive Figure 5: Segment 4 - Lloyd Street & Lisbon Avenue

35 APPENDIX G – ALTERNATIVE 2 Figure 17: Alternative 2 – Two Parallel One-Way Streets

36 Figure 2:8 Segment 1 – Wisconsin Avenue & Cass Street Figure 93: Segment 2 – State Street & Martin Drive

37 Figure 104: Segment 3 - Olmstead Way & Washington Drive Figure 115: Segment 4 - Lloyd Street & Lisbon Avenue

38 Figure 6 12. Alternative 2 street cross section.

39 APPENDIX H - ALTERNATIVE 3 Figure 1: Alternative 313 - Land Bridges

40 Figure 2: Segment 1 - Wisconsin Avenue & Cass Street Figure 3: 14 Segment 2 - State Street & Martin Drive

41 Figure 4: Segment 3- Olmstead Way & Washington Drive Figure 5: Segment 4 - Lloyd Street & Lisbon Avenue

42 Figure 19 - Land Bridge Proposal for W. Wells St. - https://www.patrickfinucane.com/vertdistrict Figure 16 - Land Bridge Proposal for Philadelphia Waterfront Figure 15 - Reconnect Rondo Land Bridge Proposal Figure 17 - Duluth Land Bridge Park Figure 18 - The Robert L.B. Tobin Land Bridge - Texas

43 APPENDIX I – ALTERNATIVE 4 Figure 1: Alternative 4 20- Inset Boulevard with pedestrian connections

44 Figure 2: Segment 1 22 - Olmstead Way & Washington Drive Figure 321 : Segment 2 - State Street & Martin Drive

45 Figure 5: Segment 423 -- Lloyd Street & Lisbon Avenue Figure 4: Segment 4 - Olmstead Way & Washington Drive