Wisconsin 4 lane wish list

[The Ghostbuster]

I did know about that dropped freeway proposal south of US 10 between Stevens Point and Amherst Junction. That's why I considered it more practical to upgrade existing US 10 to freeway standards (if it ever comes to that). In any event, I agree that Wisconsin is probably finished with new 2-to-4-lane expansion plans for a long time. The most that will happen is that some existing 4-lane highways might be converted to freeway standards eventually, and maybe a few freeways will be widened. Other than that, the DOT will probably only construct some more roundabouts where the need arises.

[dvferyance]

How about a wish list for existing 4 lanes sections to get upgraded to a freeway?

US 18/151 from Dodgeville to Verona. I know the plans are already in place for this stretch to be converted to freeway, I just wish it would hurry up and get done already. Same with the stetch of US 151 from Columbus to Waupun.

I would at least like to see a freeway upgrade from Verona to Mt Horeb with an interchange built at Hwy F at Blue Mounds. And perhaps on overpass at Hwy Y just east of Dodgeville.

[GeekJedi]

When I drive from Mukwonago to Janesville and back, I now go through Beloit. With the improvements at the Beloit interchange an along I-90, it's a much better drive than taking 14. It's only a few minutes longer now.

Before any two-lane upgrades, I'd like to see some needed three-lane upgrades, such as I-94 between CTH-SS and WI-67, and I-90/94 from I-39 to the Dells.

[skluth]

A tiny four-lane wish that I haven't seen yet is upgrading CTH A in Dodge County between US 151 and WI 26 and then four-lane WI 26 south to WI 60. It would also include interchanges at CTH A/WI 26 and CTH A/WI 33. Don't know if it's needed now, but there will be a future need for it. CTH A was moderately busy when I drove it 5-6 years ago and several trucks were using it both ways.

Unfortunately, that might require CTH A being upgraded by Dodge County unless it is added to the state's highway mileage. And while I like roundabouts, I would hate to see one at CTH A/WI 33.

[gr8daynegb]

Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI.  Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.

[JREwing78]

A tiny four-lane wish that I haven't seen yet is upgrading CTH A in Dodge County between US 151 and WI 26 and then four-lane WI 26 south to WI 60. It would also include interchanges at CTH A/WI 26 and CTH A/WI 33.

Long-term, that might be the optimal routing for Hwy 26 in terms of traffic counts, and the shortest path to a continuous 4-lane divided highway from Janesville to Waupun. (It would save about 3-5 miles of new-terrain highway building v.s. a more direct route from the County A junction).

They would want to route the new highway close enough to Juneau to justify offloading the existing Hwy 26 as a County road; there's no reason to keep it in the state highway system.

[JREwing78]

Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI.  Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.

I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.

Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.

[skluth]

Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI.  Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.

I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.

I grew up in Green Bay and my family regularly camped at Lake Antoine near Iron Mountain in the early 70s. US 141 was bad north of Abrams even then. My mom's family came from the Coleman area and I remember my dad hating the drive to Coleman to visit my grandma. That four-laning was much needed.

[The Ghostbuster]

Do existing traffic demands warrant a further 4-lane upgrade of US 141 north of STH-64? I think the DOT would have studied and implemented expanding 141 further north if it had been warranted in the 2000s.

[SSOWorld]

Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI.  Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.

I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.

Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.

If you're looking for a speed limit change, the building of 4-lane roads isn't the answer despite how Wisconsin thinks - They should get their heads out of their ****s and up speed limits on 2-lane roads where it is safe (like 141 is absolutely safe for 60 at the minimum).  See MnDOT.

[JREwing78]

Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI.  Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.

I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.

Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.

If you're looking for a speed limit change, the building of 4-lane roads isn't the answer despite how Wisconsin thinks - They should get their heads out of their ****s and up speed limits on 2-lane roads where it is safe (like 141 is absolutely safe for 60 at the minimum).  See MnDOT.

Fixed the quoting for you.

It's less about the speed limit difference and more about removing traffic (including heavy truck traffic) just "passing through" towns along the route. To get through Iron Mountain/Kingsford/Quinnesec/Niagara on US-141 is 12 miles of stoplights and lower speed limits. Even a rudimentary bypass that's mostly 2-lane with at-grade intersections would save about 10 minutes of drive time. That's similar to the drive time difference of following the County N/County U/US-8 bypass between Florence and Pembine.

Given weekend traffic levels, one can make a case today to extend the 4-lane section of US-141 past Crivitz, and I would argue it prudent to continue it past Wausaukee, in effect extending the 4-lane section about 20 miles. But it's not at a crisis level like the section south of Hwy 22 was in the late '90s, and there's more compelling places for WisDOT to pursue highway expansion.

[hobsini2]

There are some state (and US) highways I would consider as a secondary backbone to the Backbone 2020 project. They should not be full fledge freeways or even divided highways but at least as 4 lane undivided highways. So with that in mind, these are the corridors that I could still see an upgrade in the next 20 years. And some of these already have 4 lane or freeway sections.
US 2 - Superior to Hurley
US 8 - Heafford Junction (US 51) to Rhinelander
US 10 - Osseo to Marshfield
US 10 - Appleton to Manitowoc
Wis 11 - Dubuque to Racine
US 14 - La Crosse to Madison
Wis 16 - Portage to Waukesha
US 18 - Prairie du Chien to Dodgeville
Wis 19 - US 12 to Sun Prairie
Wis 21 - Tomah to Oshkosh
Wis 26 - Watertown to Waupun
Wis 33 - Beaver Dam to Port Washington
US 51 - Tomahawk to Hurley
US 53 & Wis 93 - La Crosse to Eau Claire
Wis 60 - Slinger to Grafton
US 61 - Dubuque to La Crosse (with Wis 129 at Lancaster)

[skluth]

^
I have no problems with identifying those roads as future corridors to upgrade. I don't think they all need to be upgraded to four lanes anytime soon. Many could get by easily for quite some time if they are just upgraded to something like WI 26 north of Waupun with several three-lane passing segments (although with towns like Rosendale bypassed). Personally, I think Wisconsin would be well served by building cheap short bypasses around smaller towns like those around Whitewater, Rhinelander, and Lancaster rather than just going for expressways. I believe a budget bypass is also the plan for Hortonville. Ideally, they would also be planned for eventual upgrade to a four-lane expressway like US 151 was around Columbus.

[SEWIGuy]

There are some state (and US) highways I would consider as a secondary backbone to the Backbone 2020 project. They should not be full fledge freeways or even divided highways but at least as 4 lane undivided highways. So with that in mind, these are the corridors that I could still see an upgrade in the next 20 years. And some of these already have 4 lane or freeway sections.
US 2 - Superior to Hurley
US 8 - Heafford Junction (US 51) to Rhinelander
US 10 - Osseo to Marshfield
US 10 - Appleton to Manitowoc
Wis 11 - Dubuque to Racine
US 14 - La Crosse to Madison
Wis 16 - Portage to Waukesha
US 18 - Prairie du Chien to Dodgeville
Wis 19 - US 12 to Sun Prairie
Wis 21 - Tomah to Oshkosh
Wis 26 - Watertown to Waupun
Wis 33 - Beaver Dam to Port Washington
US 51 - Tomahawk to Hurley
US 53 & Wis 93 - La Crosse to Eau Claire
Wis 60 - Slinger to Grafton
US 61 - Dubuque to La Crosse (with Wis 129 at Lancaster)

I think most of these are satisfactory as two lane roads.  They handle current traffic volumes just fine.

As I have been saying, Wisconsin is focusing on adding additional capacity to current major corridors, and that is for the best.  Large, expensive but kinda boring projects.  They are needed though.

[hobsini2]

SE, I wasn't saying that these are needed to be done right away. But I could see these as the next set over the next 20 years.

[SEWIGuy]

SE, I wasn't saying that these are needed to be done right away. But I could see these as the next set over the next 20 years.

Yeah, I just don't think that timeline is in anyway realistic.  You have identified 16 upgrade projects, many of significant length.  But are any of these even on WIDOT's radar?  Just doing a quick review of their site, I don't see any of them.

[JoePCool14]

There are some state (and US) highways I would consider as a secondary backbone to the Backbone 2020 project. They should not be full fledge freeways or even divided highways but at least as 4 lane undivided highways. So with that in mind, these are the corridors that I could still see an upgrade in the next 20 years. And some of these already have 4 lane or freeway sections.

Wis 11 - Dubuque to Racine

I just clinched WI-11 today. I needed the segment from Burlington to Janesville and WI-23 to WI-80.

I do not think WI-11 needs to be four-laned for its entire length. Some more bypasses of small towns (i.e., Brodhead, as previously discussed) would be the primary improvement needed. Also some resurfacing east of Brodhead, that section's fairly ragged. The other option is just to add a few more passing lanes to help relieve in any bottlenecks that build up.

[I-39]

Let's just four lane every state highway in Wisconsin as a freeway, slap a bunch of Interstate shields on them and call it a day. That way we don't need to have endless threads about "What Wisconsin Highway needs to be four laned, converted to freeway, become an Interstate, etc."  

In all seriousness, these threads are getting old. I admit I used to enjoy talking about this subject, but now it's just 2-3 threads at any one time of tired regurgitated info. Wisconsin seems to be talked about on this subject more than any other Midwest state because of the four lane highway building spree it went on in the 90s/2000s/2010s. Reality is those days are over and the focus is shifting to rebuilding the Interstates. A lot of the roads haven't met their traffic projections and WisDOT is going to be facing massive maintenance budgets in the future.

Unless something concrete emerges, we should limit this discussion to the fictional highways board or keep it within the Wisconsin notes thread.

[3467]

I was going to suggest a regional thread. We apparently need catharsis on this subject.
Illinois has a few going In the suburbs and downstate. Downstate parts of 24 34 50 67 IL 97 127 . The rest are probably suitable for the wish list. How about the rest of the states. US 219 was just dropped in Western NY.

[SEWIGuy]

Let's just four lane every state highway in Wisconsin as a freeway, slap a bunch of Interstate shields on them and call it a day. That way we don't need to have endless threads about "What Wisconsin Highway needs to be four laned, converted to freeway, become an Interstate, etc."  

In all seriousness, these threads are getting old. I admit I used to enjoy talking about this subject, but now it's just 2-3 threads at any one time of tired regurgitated info. Wisconsin seems to be talked about on this subject more than any other Midwest state because of the four lane highway building spree it went on in the 90s/2000s/2010s. Reality is those days are over and the focus is shifting to rebuilding the Interstates. A lot of the roads haven't met their traffic projections and WisDOT is going to be facing massive maintenance budgets in the future.

Unless something concrete emerges, we should limit this discussion to the fictional highways board or keep it within the Wisconsin notes thread.

Yeah, I travel this state extensively and some of these suggestions are just wild to me.  It's like every inconvenience that slows someone down for even a brief period of time, be it driving through a small town or having to drive behind three cars before you can pass, calls for massive upgrades to corridors. 

Like the idea of a Broadhead bypass.  There is about 4,500 vpd on either side of a city of 3,200 that is maybe sits about a mile and a half along WI-11.  Why on earth would that need to be bypassed?  Especially when traffic flows through there just fine.

Now compare that to rush hour in the Milwaukee or Madison areas.  Or along I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay.  That is where the resources need to be focused.

[skluth]

I was going to suggest a regional thread. We apparently need catharsis on this subject.
Illinois has a few going In the suburbs and downstate. Downstate parts of 24 34 50 67 IL 97 127 . The rest are probably suitable for the wish list. How about the rest of the states. US 219 was just dropped in Western NY.

This thread is already walking the fine line of Fictional. Any expansion beyond speculation roughly based on past WISDOT activities would toss it completely into Fictional.

[gr8daynegb]

Myself I would have US-141 stay four lanes once it goes north of Pound, WI heading towards Iron Mountain, MI.  Monday through Thursdays traffic is the argument against....drive north on Friday or Saturday, or drive south on Sundays(especially in summer) you'd like an extra lane as traffic can back itself up for miles even with people driving paths to avoid this.

I remember in the late '90s driving US-141 when it was just 2 lanes north of Abrams. It was utterly horrible. The 4-laning to Hwy 64 was certainly welcome and made that drive a pleasure.

Extending the 4-lane up and around Iron Mountain would certainly speed things up. I've taken to following County N, then County U south of Florence to bypass the long slog through Niagara and Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain's downtown would certainly appreciate not having massive logging trucks rumbling through it. Problem is, you've got to get Michigan involved to really make an Iron Mountain bypass worth the trouble - a westerly Iron Mountain bypass would have far less utility than a east to north loop. Last I checked, Michigan was far from being in a position to expand highways, let along fill the potholes in what they have now.

If you're looking for a speed limit change, the building of 4-lane roads isn't the answer despite how Wisconsin thinks - They should get their heads out of their ****s and up speed limits on 2-lane roads where it is safe (like 141 is absolutely safe for 60 at the minimum).  See MnDOT.

Fixed the quoting for you.

It's less about the speed limit difference and more about removing traffic (including heavy truck traffic) just "passing through" towns along the route. To get through Iron Mountain/Kingsford/Quinnesec/Niagara on US-141 is 12 miles of stoplights and lower speed limits. Even a rudimentary bypass that's mostly 2-lane with at-grade intersections would save about 10 minutes of drive time. That's similar to the drive time difference of following the County N/County U/US-8 bypass between Florence and Pembine.

Given weekend traffic levels, one can make a case today to extend the 4-lane section of US-141 past Crivitz, and I would argue it prudent to continue it past Wausaukee, in effect extending the 4-lane section about 20 miles. But it's not at a crisis level like the section south of Hwy 22 was in the late '90s, and there's more compelling places for WisDOT to pursue highway expansion.

Not crisis level.....but on weekends 141 becomes a highway you want to find other routes. I like to visit Ontonagon, MI in the summer so for the portion of the trip to get to Iron River, MI from Coleman we take WI-64 west to WI-32 north followed by taking US-8 east to WI-139 north which then turns into MI-189 before reaching US 2 as talking US 141 to US 2 to get to that point becomes gridlock in both directions(and the alternative routes get congested as we aren't the only ones with that idea. While does not need to be a freeway/expressway north of Pound, the more between Pound to the MI state line that could become 4 lane could help make traffic much less frustrating especially on weekends.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Cabin routes are the worst, because they only need 4 lanes on incredibly predictable Fridays and Sundays between Memorial Day and Labor Day (maybe into early October for the leaf peepers).

[JREwing78]

Given weekend traffic levels, one can make a case today to extend the 4-lane section of US-141 past Crivitz, and I would argue it prudent to continue it past Wausaukee, in effect extending the 4-lane section about 20 miles. But it's not at a crisis level like the section south of Hwy 22 was in the late '90s, and there's more compelling places for WisDOT to pursue highway expansion.

Not crisis level.....but on weekends 141 becomes a highway you want to find other routes...

While does not need to be a freeway/expressway north of Pound, the more between Pound to the MI state line that could become 4 lane could help make traffic much less frustrating especially on weekends.

WisDOT has gotten better about deploying stretches of passing lanes as needed, and US-141 makes decent use of them, but one or two more sections would be helpful. US-2 east of Rapid River, MI is a good example - about every 10-12 miles you get a 2-mile section of passing lanes. Perhaps WisDOT can incorporate these into bypasses of Crivitz and Wausaukee?

[gr8daynegb]

Outside of the US 141, US 12 near Sauk City is one of the few areas that needs to go 4 lanes regardless if the bypass Sauk City or not.....being it's the last portion of 12 to still be two lanes does cause traffic to jam up before 12 becomes four lanes again regardless of direction you are heading.  Being I grew up near the Dells if you took the scenic route to Madison(US 12, not 90/94) remember the old days of jammed traffic between Baraboo to Middleton lol