News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

U.S. 12 realignment between Whitewater-Elkhorn

Started by peterj920, August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

peterj920

I noticed that WISDOT is currently studying realigning US 12 on their majors highway report between Whitewater and Elkhorn.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/majors.pdf

I find it interesting that the Fork Atkinson Bypass was put on hold, while the proposed reroute is being resurrected. Could this possibly be happening because Whitewater holds the new title of biggest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway?  The idea was put on hold years ago because Illinois didn't improve US 12, but something must have gotten WISDOT to revive the plans. 


TheHighwayMan3561

For some reason my browsers won't load the page, but approximately where is the studied corridor located? The issue being there's a state forest and Whitewater Lake directly in the path of the most logical route, so I was envisioning something like heading south on WIS 89 before cutting back to the east toward Elkhorn.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

peterj920

#2
Here is a link to the majors timetable document, page 25 on the document or page 29 on the acrobat reader shows that they are just starting to study US 12

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/status.pdf

I also came across the Connections 2030 plan for Walworth County and it is in the plans to realign US 12

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/multimodal/conn2030/maps/walworth-mpa.pdf

If you want to know the specific location, here is the official map from the DOT:

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/walworth.pdf


SEWIGuy

My understanding is that the corridor for US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater has been mapped for some time.  This issue is being pushed by the locals in Whitewater due to the University's growth, especially in the number of students from Illinois. 

The Fort Atkinson bypass was put on hold by the governor because the people in the Town of Koshkonong are very much against it, and the City of Fort Atkinson's support could be best described as "mild" at this point.  Since most of the traffic is local, this is hardly a problem right now.

But my guess is that neither is done anytime soon.

mgk920

That's commonly referred to in Wisconsin Roadgeek circles as the 'Corner Cut'.

Despite all of the development and so forth in that general area, most of its likely routing is on wide-open, pool table flat land with little or no development of any kind in the way.  It would likely follow a moderate-level power transmission line that runs between Elkhorn and Whitewater.

Also, any needed cutting in the Kettle Moraine area (its northwest end) would be through random mixed sand and gravel, typical glacial soil, and will provide few physical difficulties other than for an occasional large rock that will require blasting.

I would build it as a two lane highway on an upgradable rural four lane ROW, much like the current US 12 Whitewater bypass.  I would also redo the existing US 12/WI 20/67 intersection (US 12 makes its obsolete 90 degree turn there) as a roundabout.  WI 20 and 67 will still intersect there when the US 12 traffic is gone.

Mike

SEWIGuy

And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.

The Ghostbuster

If it is constucted anytime in the future, I'd say it should start out as a 2-lane limited access highway with at-grade intersections. If further upgrades are ever needed, they should come later.

GeekJedi

Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM
Could this possibly be happening because Whitewater holds the new title of biggest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway?

Nah. That's not a reason to build a 4 lane highway.

This seems to come up every couple of years, gets studied again, then gets put away for a few more years. My guess is that this is at least a decade or more out. Of course, that's just my opinion! ;-)
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

Revive 755

Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM
I noticed that WISDOT is currently studying realigning US 12 on their majors highway report between Whitewater and Elkhorn.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/majors.pdf

Where exactly does it say that study is for a realignment and not just a major upgrading of the existing corridor?  The study could just as easily be a major overhaul of the current corridor to rebuild to modern standards with full shoulders and turn lanes.



Also interesting that I-90 would be studied again between the US 12/Beltline interchange at Madison and US 12 at Wisconsin Dells.

US 41

I drove on US 12 earlier this month from Madison to Chicago. Around Whitewater especially, it is very noticeable that US 12 will eventually be 4 lanes southeast of Whitewater. What I found most interesting is the stubs in Genoa City of what was supposed to be a US 12 freeway going into Illinois. Unfortunately that never happened.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

peterj920

Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2015, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 31, 2015, 12:35:39 AM
I noticed that WISDOT is currently studying realigning US 12 on their majors highway report between Whitewater and Elkhorn.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/majors.pdf

Where exactly does it say that study is for a realignment and not just a major upgrading of the existing corridor?  The study could just as easily be a major overhaul of the current corridor to rebuild to modern standards with full shoulders and turn lanes.



Also interesting that I-90 would be studied again between the US 12/Beltline interchange at Madison and US 12 at Wisconsin Dells.

Look at the 2nd link I posted.  If only minor improvements were going to be studied, it wouldn't show up on the Majors Projects Report.  The report only shows big projects, such as the I-41 project and the Zoo Interchange.  It does say "possible alignment adjustments and capacity improvements."  It's a preliminary study and the route wasn't on the last report.  The first three projects being studied on the report were put on hold, which are US 8 between St. Croix Falls and US 53, US 14/11 between Janesville and i-43, and the US 12 Fort Atkinson Bypass.  The US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn section is going to be studied in order to be considered for a major project, which shows that there is enough traffic or political influence to take a look at that section of US 12.  It says that the study and EIS won't be ready til 2019, but they're starting to plan for it. 

froggie

Quote from: Revive755Where exactly does it say that study is for a realignment and not just a major upgrading of the existing corridor?  The study could just as easily be a major overhaul of the current corridor to rebuild to modern standards with full shoulders and turn lanes.

Yes, a study could be for that.  But you may not be aware that WisDOT has officially mapped out a new-alignment for US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn.

I-39

Because the freeway will not continue into Illinois, I would lean towards improving the existing route rather than continuing the freeway corridor northwest from Elkhorn to Whitewater.

However, if it must be built on the new alignment, I would scale it back to an expressway, but only build it as a Super Two with at-grade intersections. Then build the two other lanes when funding becomes available, but keep the at-grade intersections in the rural areas.

Of course, WisDOT has better things to spend their money on, and this really isn't a pressing need anyway.

JREwing78

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2015, 02:49:35 PM
And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.

... and then on to Edgerton via County N. :D

peterj920

Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2015, 05:46:18 PM
Because the freeway will not continue into Illinois, I would lean towards improving the existing route rather than continuing the freeway corridor northwest from Elkhorn to Whitewater.

However, if it must be built on the new alignment, I would scale it back to an expressway, but only build it as a Super Two with at-grade intersections. Then build the two other lanes when funding becomes available, but keep the at-grade intersections in the rural areas.

Of course, WisDOT has better things to spend their money on, and this really isn't a pressing need anyway.

The DOT isn't looking at building US 12 as an expressway from Elkhorn to Madison.  This project is starting to be worked on while the US 12 Bypass of Fort Atkinson is being put on hold.  The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access.  Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway.  Marshfield lobbied for US 10 to be upgraded with this reasoning and now that they have their 4 lane expressway.  Local officials in Whitewater probably feel that it's Whitewater's turn.  According to the DOT's 2030 Connection plan, every community over 5,000 is connected with either a connector or backbone route.  Many connectors are 2 lane roads, but the DOT gives them priority and tries to make them high quality routes.  Over time, many of the connectors are going to be slated to be upgraded to 4 lanes, and priority will probably be ranked by how big the communities are that don't have a 4 lane highway.  Whitewater would be next. 

froggie

Better would be ranking them by traffic volume than by population size.  They don't always correlate.

peterj920

#16
Quote from: froggie on September 02, 2015, 06:20:53 AM
Better would be ranking them by traffic volume than by population size.  They don't always correlate.

I'm just using that theory based on how they are upgrading roads because it seems like the DOT is using that as logic for upgrading highways, and how the Corridors 2030 plan is laid out.  For example, Wis 23 connector status dead ends at Ripon and Wis 60 connector status ends at Hartford because the goal of the plan is to link every city over 5,000 in the state of Wisconsin.  US 10 east of Stevens Point has more traffic than west of Stevens Point, but the new expressway was built from I-39 to Marshfield, while the new freeway that was supposed to be constructed from Amherst Jct to I-39 was placed on hold.  Marshfield was lobbying for a 4 lane expressway for years, and they got it.  If the decision to delay a bypass was based on traffic counts, the bypass west of I-39 would have been placed on hold and the Stevens Point East bypass would have been built instead.  Stevens Point already has uninterrupted high speed connection with I-39, something that Marshfield didn't have until recently. They're probably trying to give Whitewater that connection next. 

Mrt90

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 02, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2015, 02:49:35 PM
And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.

... and then on to Edgerton via County N. :D

Extending Hwy 20 at least to I-39 should be done regardless of what happens with US12, but if they "cut the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater then the US12-Walworth Ave-Cnty N-Hwy 59 route to I-39 to get to Madison/Dells/etc. becomes an even better alternate than continuing on US12 or taking I-94 from Kenosha County or Northeastern Illinois, so that entire route should be a state highway.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: peterj920 on September 02, 2015, 02:03:27 AM
Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2015, 05:46:18 PM
Because the freeway will not continue into Illinois, I would lean towards improving the existing route rather than continuing the freeway corridor northwest from Elkhorn to Whitewater.

However, if it must be built on the new alignment, I would scale it back to an expressway, but only build it as a Super Two with at-grade intersections. Then build the two other lanes when funding becomes available, but keep the at-grade intersections in the rural areas.

Of course, WisDOT has better things to spend their money on, and this really isn't a pressing need anyway.

The DOT isn't looking at building US 12 as an expressway from Elkhorn to Madison.  This project is starting to be worked on while the US 12 Bypass of Fort Atkinson is being put on hold.  The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access.  Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway.  Marshfield lobbied for US 10 to be upgraded with this reasoning and now that they have their 4 lane expressway.  Local officials in Whitewater probably feel that it's Whitewater's turn.  According to the DOT's 2030 Connection plan, every community over 5,000 is connected with either a connector or backbone route.  Many connectors are 2 lane roads, but the DOT gives them priority and tries to make them high quality routes.  Over time, many of the connectors are going to be slated to be upgraded to 4 lanes, and priority will probably be ranked by how big the communities are that don't have a 4 lane highway.  Whitewater would be next. 


I work in Whitewater and have never heard the "largest city without a four lane highway" reasoning for the upgrade.  What I have heard is that "cutting the corner" provides better access to the city and to the University from Illinois and off I-43.  I don't think anyone reasonably expects this to be a four lane highway any time in the near future.  The traffic counts don't justify it.

Regardless, I doubt this is going to happen anytime soon.  (And by "soon" I mean in the next 15 years.)

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Mrt90 on September 02, 2015, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 02, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2015, 02:49:35 PM
And then you can simply extend WI-20 west to Whitewater.

... and then on to Edgerton via County N. :D

Extending Hwy 20 at least to I-39 should be done regardless of what happens with US12, but if they "cut the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater then the US12-Walworth Ave-Cnty N-Hwy 59 route to I-39 to get to Madison/Dells/etc. becomes an even better alternate than continuing on US12 or taking I-94 from Kenosha County or Northeastern Illinois, so that entire route should be a state highway.


Rock County N gets about 3000-3200 cars per day per WIDOT.  There are plenty of county highways that get more than that across the state.

GeekJedi

Quote from: peterj920 on September 02, 2015, 02:03:27 AM
The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access.  Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway.   

Source?

I don't think that's the case. If so, that's a huge waste of resources at a time when funding is scarce.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

Joe The Dragon

well in the CNN world they called us 12 in fox lake IL interstate 12

SEWIGuy

Quote from: GeekJedi on September 02, 2015, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 02, 2015, 02:03:27 AM
The logic for constructing this project is to give Whitewater 4 lane highway access.  Currently, it's the largest city in Wisconsin without a 4 lane highway.   

Source?

I don't think that's the case. If so, that's a huge waste of resources at a time when funding is scarce.


It is the largest city without four lane access.  But it's 14,000+ so it's not a travesty by any means.  But I have simply never heard that as part of the reasoning.

tchafe1978

If you keep looking for the next biggest city that doesn't have 4-lane access, and then give that city 4-lane access, eventually you'll have every town in the state connected by 4-lane highways. That's a bogus argument for a 4-lane highway, IMO.

I-39

Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 02, 2015, 02:33:47 PM
If you keep looking for the next biggest city that doesn't have 4-lane access, and then give that city 4-lane access, eventually you'll have every town in the state connected by 4-lane highways. That's a bogus argument for a 4-lane highway, IMO.

Exactly. Not every town needs 4 lane expressway/freeway access. US 10 to Marshfield was a complete waste of money for example, as are some of the other widening projects WisDOT is pursuing in rural areas.

WisDOT does a good job at building roads, but a lot of them need rebuilding. With federal and state dollars drying up, they need to focus on that.

Because the McHenry leg of the IL-53 extension (Richmond-Waukegan Expressway) will never be built in Illinois, it is pointless to continue the Interstate-grade US 12 freeway northwest of Elkhorn. Scale it back to an expressway or improve the existing route.



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.