Madison Beltline/Wis 145/Wis 175 no longer shown as freeway on new WISDOT map?!

Started by peterj920, August 02, 2016, 02:53:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

peterj920

Picked up a new WISDOT map from the I-43 rest stop and see some interesting changes. 

The interchanges and overpasses are still shown, but The Madison Beltline, Wis 145, Wis 175, and Wis 119 are simply shown as multilane divided roadways instead of freeways.  Wis 145 and Wis 175 may have been downgraded on the map because they're stub freeways, but why downgrade the Madison Beltline on the map?  Wis 30 is still shown as a freeway. 

Other changes:


Temp 18 is shown along Wis 83 and I-94, with the confusing US 18 being marked to the eventual Waukesha Bypass and apparently showing US 18 within the City of Waukesha turned back as a city street.
Wis 74 was removed. 
US 45 is now shown as a freeway from US 10 to I-41.
Wis 26 is shown as an expressway with its concurrency with Wis 16
US 141 is now shown as an expressway just past Wis 64.  Previous versions had it listed as multilane divided
The Monroe Bypass of Wis 11 is not shown as a freeway, but multilane divided
Wis 29 is shown as an expressway between County VV and I-41.  This is very interesting because it does meet freeway standards and WISDOT raised the Speed Limit to 70 on that stretch. 

The only logical explanation I can think of is that WISDOT is downgrading the listing of non-interstate freeways on the roadways with a Speed Limit of 55 and under with the exception of Wis 30 and the short stretch of 172 in Ashwaubenon.  Overall, downgrading the markings is a very odd change, especially with the Madison Beltine. 


The Ghostbuster

The DOT website still shows the 2015/2016 edition. Is the one you got a 2017/2018 edition? If so, I'll try to get one as soon as I can.

dvferyance

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2016, 05:44:02 PM
The DOT website still shows the 2015/2016 edition. Is the one you got a 2017/2018 edition? If so, I'll try to get one as soon as I can.
I wouldn't think the 2017 edition would be out until next spring.

peterj920

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2016, 05:44:02 PM
The DOT website still shows the 2015/2016 edition. Is the one you got a 2017/2018 edition? If so, I'll try to get one as soon as I can.

It says it's the 2015-2016 edition supplemental printing.  If you go to the AA roads Facebook page, there is a picture of the Waukesha map with Temp US 18.

peterj920


dvferyance

That's very odd they would downgrade the belt line but the US 14 freeway south of there is still marked as one. I find this edition to be a waste of money and it would have been smart to wait until 2017 before doing any new routing changes then mark those changes when the next edition was due to come out.

peterj920

Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2016, 11:07:17 PM
That's very odd they would downgrade the belt line but the US 14 freeway south of there is still marked as one.

US 14 has a 70 mph speed limit while the Beltline has a 55 mph speed limit, I'm guessing that may be why.  I also noticed that the section of US 151 near I-94 that has a 55mph speed limit was also downgraded, but is back to freeway where it has a 70 mph speed limit. 

JREwing78

This "supplemental" map is all kinds of terrible. One example: all the larger town names are way, way too large now, and they all use the same exact font. You can't clearly distinguish the differences in town sizes between places like Whitewater or Fort Atkinson, about 10,000-15,000 residents, from Beloit and Janesville, which are about 37,000 and 65,000 residents, respectively.

Also, they screwed up the section of Hwy 26 between County N near Milton and the 26 business loop in Fort Atkinson - that's supposed to be controlled-access expressway, not a full freeway.


SEWIGuy

Quote from: peterj920 on August 02, 2016, 11:26:18 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2016, 11:07:17 PM
That's very odd they would downgrade the belt line but the US 14 freeway south of there is still marked as one.

US 14 has a 70 mph speed limit while the Beltline has a 55 mph speed limit, I'm guessing that may be why.  I also noticed that the section of US 151 near I-94 that has a 55mph speed limit was also downgraded, but is back to freeway where it has a 70 mph speed limit. 


I think that is a poor reason to make a distinction.  The Milwaukee area freeways are all 55 mph and they are shown as freeways.  The Beltline is much more like I-94 in Milwaukee than it is like Park Street - which is shown as the exact same type of road.

Also the Temp US-18 distinction is strange.  Will it even be signed that way?

peterj920

I did see signs for Temporary 18 when I was in the area last.  I would like to see how US 18 is signed now that there is a gap.  Are end signs placed where the City of Waukesha took over jurisdiction? 

The Ghostbuster

Is the Temporary 18 signs posted because they are finally constructing the West Waukesha Bypass, or is it for some project on existing US 18?

triplemultiplex

Wow, that is quite awful.  Every copy of that map should be burned.  :pan: :pan: :crazy: :banghead:
They even demoted US 151 toward Sun Prairie over its 55 mph stretch.  :ded:

I need to look at the Madison inset I've been modifying just to get the taste out of my mouth:


Ah, that's better. :nod:
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

peterj920

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2016, 06:05:56 PM
Is the Temporary 18 signs posted because they are finally constructing the West Waukesha Bypass, or is it for some project on existing US 18?

US 18 will follow the Waukesha West Bypass, then utilize Les Paul
Parkway back to its original alignment after the bypass is complete.  I'm guessing the Temp 18 is put up so US 18 in Waukesha can be turned back to the city.  Notice how there is now a gap on US 18 in Waukesha.  I would like to see how it is signed now.  I did see Temporary US 18 signs on I-94, but I wish now I would have investigated more.  I live too far away to check out but will when I'm in the area.

GeekJedi

I believe (and I'll confirm) that US 18 is still signed in Waukesha. There's a sign where the split begins in Wales that says something like "Waukesha traffic use US 18" or something along those lines.

Part of the reason for doing this now is massive construction through Waukesha - many sections of US 18 in Waukesha are closed or under construction in preparation for the jurisdictional transfer.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

dvferyance

Quote from: GeekJedi on August 04, 2016, 07:29:53 AM
I believe (and I'll confirm) that US 18 is still signed in Waukesha. There's a sign where the split begins in Wales that says something like "Waukesha traffic use US 18" or something along those lines.

Part of the reason for doing this now is massive construction through Waukesha - many sections of US 18 in Waukesha are closed or under construction in preparation for the jurisdictional transfer.
That is what I was thinking too. Moreland Blvd is completely closed between Manhattan and North st. My proposal is reroute WI-164 back onto it's old alignment before the reroute in 2005. The zig zaggy east and then west route just makes no sense. This would keep the part from Les Paul pkwy to North st a state highway as I think it's too major to be downgraded to a local city street. The part from Grandview to Meadowbrook would become an extension of county Hwy T then anything in between would become a Waukesha city street.

GeekJedi

Quote from: dvferyance on August 05, 2016, 07:04:26 PM
That is what I was thinking too. Moreland Blvd is completely closed between Manhattan and North st. My proposal is reroute WI-164 back onto it's old alignment before the reroute in 2005. The zig zaggy east and then west route just makes no sense. This would keep the part from Les Paul pkwy to North st a state highway as I think it's too major to be downgraded to a local city street. The part from Grandview to Meadowbrook would become an extension of county Hwy T then anything in between would become a Waukesha city street.

Yeah, I think the 164 re-route in that area didn't make a ton of sense, other than I suppose the route is a little easier for non-locals. Part of me would almost run it right through Waukesha and send it out on St. Paul Ave (along the former WI-59 route) and out to the current WI-59. Unfortunately that bucks against the trend of moving state and US highways off of city streets, which I get. It just seems that would actually be the most direct route.

My guess is that the big deal breaker for all of this is the area around Frame Park. Those two intersections and the train crossing have been a huge traffic problem, and anything they can do to get "through" traffic out of the area is a good thing.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

SEWIGuy

I think what they should have done is eliminate WI-164 north of WI-59 (Waukesha bypass).  From Slinger they could have then rerouted WI-144 down County J to I-94.

FightingIrish

US 18 signs are still currently up along the original local street routing through Waukesha, but the Temp 18 signs went up along I-94 a few months ago. And yes, the construction in town is an absolute mess.

The proposed western bypass of Waukesha isn't even close to becoming reality. Right now, just a very narrow county road traveling past farmland.

As for the weird routing of 164, it does make some sense. Wisconsin wanted a consistent route number along that corridor, and wanted highway number designations along all of the Les Paul Bypass and the busy part of Moreland Blvd. They and the city of Waukesha also wanted to remove some route numbers from the downtown area, so that's the reason for the I-94 concurrency.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: FightingIrish on August 06, 2016, 01:08:16 PM
US 18 signs are still currently up along the original local street routing through Waukesha, but the Temp 18 signs went up along I-94 a few months ago. And yes, the construction in town is an absolute mess.

The proposed western bypass of Waukesha isn't even close to becoming reality. Right now, just a very narrow county road traveling past farmland.


Doesn't construction start next year?

dvferyance

Quote from: GeekJedi on August 05, 2016, 10:01:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 05, 2016, 07:04:26 PM
That is what I was thinking too. Moreland Blvd is completely closed between Manhattan and North st. My proposal is reroute WI-164 back onto it's old alignment before the reroute in 2005. The zig zaggy east and then west route just makes no sense. This would keep the part from Les Paul pkwy to North st a state highway as I think it's too major to be downgraded to a local city street. The part from Grandview to Meadowbrook would become an extension of county Hwy T then anything in between would become a Waukesha city street.

Yeah, I think the 164 re-route in that area didn't make a ton of sense, other than I suppose the route is a little easier for non-locals. Part of me would almost run it right through Waukesha and send it out on St. Paul Ave (along the former WI-59 route) and out to the current WI-59. Unfortunately that bucks against the trend of moving state and US highways off of city streets, which I get. It just seems that would actually be the most direct route.

My guess is that the big deal breaker for all of this is the area around Frame Park. Those two intersections and the train crossing have been a huge traffic problem, and anything they can do to get "through" traffic out of the area is a good thing.
True that train crossing does cause major backups no doubt. I read an article back in 2006 where it was proposed that the crossing be grade separated. Is that dead? If so it's a shame. I thought with the ongoing construction that's what they were going to be doing with this current project but I guess not. A grade separation there is definitely needed regardless if it's a state highway or a city street.

GeekJedi

Quote from: dvferyance on August 06, 2016, 11:28:35 PM
True that train crossing does cause major backups no doubt. I read an article back in 2006 where it was proposed that the crossing be grade separated. Is that dead? If so it's a shame. I thought with the ongoing construction that's what they were going to be doing with this current project but I guess not. A grade separation there is definitely needed regardless if it's a state highway or a city street.

Pretty certain the grade separation project is dead, if I remember right that was going to be a state and federally paid project. No way the city can afford that. I'm thinking that in the time since that came out (and a look at the cost involved) they decided that moving the USH/STH designations off of that stretch was a better alternative to them. You're right though, it's still a mess.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

20160805

I was on the Beltline on Thursday, and there's no way it isn't a freeway, at least the part I was on (US 18/151 to I-39/90).  Sure, the speed limit isn't 70 like a lot of other freeways, but the speed limit has nothing to do with it.  If it has no at-grade intersections, it's a freeway, and there's no two ways about it.

Kind of interesting how part of it is designated concurrently as four different US highways, though.
Left for 5 months Oct 2018-Mar 2019 due to arguing in the DST thread.
Tried coming back Mar 2019.
Left again Jul 2019 due to more arguing.

triplemultiplex

The crux of the issue with the WisDOT map is they are trying to communicate something to map users that is not particularly important: speed limit.
The important classification that should be communicated is what type of facility it is.  The level of access control is what matters, not speed limit.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding about the functionality of a state highway map and whoever is driving this change needs a swift kick in the ass to remove their head from that chasm.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

20160805

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2016, 10:25:49 PM
The crux of the issue with the WisDOT map is they are trying to communicate something to map users that is not particularly important: speed limit.
The important classification that should be communicated is what type of facility it is.  The level of access control is what matters, not speed limit.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding about the functionality of a state highway map.

I agree.  A random rural road might have a speed limit of 55, and so might a freeway.  And in case they were at all confused, this rural road is way different from this freeway (which is the Beltline).

(Thank you to 7/8 for helping me fix this post.)
Left for 5 months Oct 2018-Mar 2019 due to arguing in the DST thread.
Tried coming back Mar 2019.
Left again Jul 2019 due to more arguing.

7/8

Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 08, 2016, 06:59:35 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2016, 10:25:49 PM
The crux of the issue with the WisDOT map is they are trying to communicate something to map users that is not particularly important: speed limit.
The important classification that should be communicated is what type of facility it is.  The level of access control is what matters, not speed limit.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding about the functionality of a state highway map.

I agree.  A random rural road might have a speed limit of 55, and so might a freeway.  And in case they were at all confused, https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2414364,-88.1832632,3a,75y,188.64h,83.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR6OJbP5TbILjP5OcxM2gkg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DR6OJbP5TbILjP5OcxM2gkg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D281.72147%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664 is way different from https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0351737,-89.4221489,3a,75y,83.38h,80.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sczZOzGEOywzzW9JG9pZxbQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DczZOzGEOywzzW9JG9pZxbQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D160.55183%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656.  The first is a random local rural road, and the second is the Beltline.

(I know the links are really long and weird; could someone fix that for me or tell me how to?  Any help is much appreciated.)

About the links, you can embed them into words and sentences to hide them. If you type the following below...

{url=https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2414364,-88.1832632,3a,75y,188.64h,83.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR6OJbP5TbILjP5OcxM2gkg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DR6OJbP5TbILjP5OcxM2gkg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D281.72147%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664}Rural Road{/url}

But replace the curly brackets { and } with square brackets [ and ], it will give you this...

Rural Road

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 07, 2016, 10:25:49 PM
The crux of the issue with the WisDOT map is they are trying to communicate something to map users that is not particularly important: speed limit.
The important classification that should be communicated is what type of facility it is.  The level of access control is what matters, not speed limit.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding about the functionality of a state highway map and whoever is driving this change needs a swift kick in the ass to remove their head from that chasm.

I'm really surprised this whole map problem even happened. :pan:



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.