I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee will most likely be the worst stretch of interstate highway in the state once the I-43 project north of Milwaukee is complete. The road bed is mostly shot and the road constantly needs to be resurfaced since the blacktop doesn't last long. Most of the bridges are old and crumbling. An emergency bridge replacement of Elmhurst Rd is taking place since concrete was falling from the bridge and nets were being used to help catch falling concrete.
The Interchanges are severely outdated especially County C in Delafield and Wis 89 in Lake Mills. There are no turn lanes and the tight ramps/narrow lanes through the interchange show the outdated design.
Traffic is heavy since I-94 connects Wisconsin's 2 largest cities and any lane closure or minor accident will cause massive backups. A 3rd lane in each direction is badly needed.
Instead of funding an uninspiring major project like rebuilding a 2 lane US 51 from Stoughton to Madison, WISDOT should take a larger look at this busy interstate corridor that's falling apart.
I would add that I-41 expansion between Appleton and Green Bay is probably just as important as this.
But you are right. This is why all the new corridor development annoys me, because this should be rebuilt and expanded to six lanes for the entire stretch for all of the reasons you indicate. This is where resources should be directed.
I-39 between Stevens Point and near Rothschild is worse in terms of road quality, but it's not as busy as I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
You could probably justify in the not too distant future a 4th lane between I-39/90 and Hwy N in Cottage Grove as well since that part of Dane County is growing a lot. It already is 6 lanes for that stretch.
From the discussion on their projects page, it sounds like a 6-laning of I-94 is at least 20 years off. It didn't help that the planned commuter rail line between Milwaukee and Madison was abruptly canceled; I suspect WisDOT's calculations when they were long-term planning Interstate rebuilds were anticipating the commuter rail line easing traffic levels and forestalling the need for a widening. I also suspect they are trying to ensure they can fund the I-94 widening east of the Zoo interchange when it's finally approved.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i94/default.aspx
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/i94wis73/default.aspx
Also unspoken: the gas tax rate freeze is not helping matters; another 10 cents per gallon would allow a lot of projects to move forward.
The most urgent need: a 6-laning and rebuild east of Hwy 67 in Oconomowoc. West of Oconomowoc can likely live with 4 lanes for a while longer, but with median cable guard rail and replacement of bridges and interchanges as needed.
That's most roads in Wisconsin. US12 is terribad.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2021, 02:50:17 PM
You could probably justify in the not too distant future a 4th lane between I-39/90 and Hwy N in Cottage Grove as well since that part of Dane County is growing a lot. It already is 6 lanes for that stretch.
Definitely not before an upgrade to six lanes between CTH-N and WI-89. I've never encountered even remotely heavy traffic on the current six lane stretch west of CTH-N. I think a lot of Cottage Grove commuters use CTH-BB rather than I-94.
The section that probably needs six-laning the least is between WI-89 and WI-26, but if you're going to do the rest then you might as well do that since it's only 7 miles.
Overall, I think the first priority should be six lanes between Prospect Ave. and WI-83. After that, between WI-83 and WI-67. After that, the rest of the way.
I don't know how much longer until the Crawfish and Rock river bridges need to be replaced, but I think they're pretty old, and they're too close to the water. It would be senseless to replace those bridges without widening them to six lanes, otherwise they'll just have to do more work on them a few years after the new ones are installed.
Nonetheless, I will stand by my position that I-90/94 between US-151 in Madison and the I-90 split in Tomah should be a higher priority for expansion than I-94 between CTH-N and Milwaukee. Eight lanes are needed between US-151 and WI-78. Six lanes are needed between WI-78 and Tomah. Maybe I'm biased because I drive that stretch much more.
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2021, 02:50:17 PM
You could probably justify in the not too distant future a 4th lane between I-39/90 and Hwy N in Cottage Grove as well since that part of Dane County is growing a lot. It already is 6 lanes for that stretch.
Definitely not before an upgrade to six lanes between CTH-N and WI-89. I've never encountered even remotely heavy traffic on the current six lane stretch west of CTH-N. I think a lot of Cottage Grove commuters use CTH-BB rather than I-94.
The section that probably needs six-laning the least is between WI-89 and WI-26, but if you're going to do the rest then you might as well do that since it's only 7 miles.
Overall, I think the first priority should be six lanes between Prospect Ave. and WI-83. After that, between WI-83 and WI-67. After that, the rest of the way.
I don't know how much longer until the Crawfish and Rock river bridges need to be replaced, but I think they're pretty old, and they're too close to the water. It would be senseless to replace those bridges without widening them to six lanes, otherwise they'll just have to do more work on them a few years after the new ones are installed.
Nonetheless, I will stand by my position that I-90/94 between US-151 in Madison and the I-90 split in Tomah should be a higher priority for expansion than I-94 between CTH-N and Milwaukee. Eight lanes are needed between US-151 and WI-78. Six lanes are needed between WI-78 and Tomah. Maybe I'm biased because I drive that stretch much more.
You're biased. Traffic count maps show more traffic in rural Jefferson County than between the Dells and Tomah.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 09, 2021, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2021, 02:50:17 PM
You could probably justify in the not too distant future a 4th lane between I-39/90 and Hwy N in Cottage Grove as well since that part of Dane County is growing a lot. It already is 6 lanes for that stretch.
Definitely not before an upgrade to six lanes between CTH-N and WI-89. I've never encountered even remotely heavy traffic on the current six lane stretch west of CTH-N. I think a lot of Cottage Grove commuters use CTH-BB rather than I-94.
The section that probably needs six-laning the least is between WI-89 and WI-26, but if you're going to do the rest then you might as well do that since it's only 7 miles.
Overall, I think the first priority should be six lanes between Prospect Ave. and WI-83. After that, between WI-83 and WI-67. After that, the rest of the way.
I don't know how much longer until the Crawfish and Rock river bridges need to be replaced, but I think they're pretty old, and they're too close to the water. It would be senseless to replace those bridges without widening them to six lanes, otherwise they'll just have to do more work on them a few years after the new ones are installed.
Nonetheless, I will stand by my position that I-90/94 between US-151 in Madison and the I-90 split in Tomah should be a higher priority for expansion than I-94 between CTH-N and Milwaukee. Eight lanes are needed between US-151 and WI-78. Six lanes are needed between WI-78 and Tomah. Maybe I'm biased because I drive that stretch much more.
You're biased. Traffic count maps show more traffic in rural Jefferson County than between the Dells and Tomah.
I believe I've showed you this before:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2015.htm
Look at the difference in truck traffic. Trucks are slower, larger, and significantly more important than small cars.
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 09, 2021, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2021, 02:50:17 PM
You could probably justify in the not too distant future a 4th lane between I-39/90 and Hwy N in Cottage Grove as well since that part of Dane County is growing a lot. It already is 6 lanes for that stretch.
Definitely not before an upgrade to six lanes between CTH-N and WI-89. I've never encountered even remotely heavy traffic on the current six lane stretch west of CTH-N. I think a lot of Cottage Grove commuters use CTH-BB rather than I-94.
The section that probably needs six-laning the least is between WI-89 and WI-26, but if you're going to do the rest then you might as well do that since it's only 7 miles.
Overall, I think the first priority should be six lanes between Prospect Ave. and WI-83. After that, between WI-83 and WI-67. After that, the rest of the way.
I don't know how much longer until the Crawfish and Rock river bridges need to be replaced, but I think they're pretty old, and they're too close to the water. It would be senseless to replace those bridges without widening them to six lanes, otherwise they'll just have to do more work on them a few years after the new ones are installed.
Nonetheless, I will stand by my position that I-90/94 between US-151 in Madison and the I-90 split in Tomah should be a higher priority for expansion than I-94 between CTH-N and Milwaukee. Eight lanes are needed between US-151 and WI-78. Six lanes are needed between WI-78 and Tomah. Maybe I'm biased because I drive that stretch much more.
You're biased. Traffic count maps show more traffic in rural Jefferson County than between the Dells and Tomah.
I believe I've showed you this before:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2015.htm
Look at the difference in truck traffic. Trucks are slower, larger, and significantly more important than small cars.
I guess whatever data supports your point you will tout when actual traffic counts don't...
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 09, 2021, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2021, 02:50:17 PM
You could probably justify in the not too distant future a 4th lane between I-39/90 and Hwy N in Cottage Grove as well since that part of Dane County is growing a lot. It already is 6 lanes for that stretch.
Definitely not before an upgrade to six lanes between CTH-N and WI-89. I've never encountered even remotely heavy traffic on the current six lane stretch west of CTH-N. I think a lot of Cottage Grove commuters use CTH-BB rather than I-94.
The section that probably needs six-laning the least is between WI-89 and WI-26, but if you're going to do the rest then you might as well do that since it's only 7 miles.
Overall, I think the first priority should be six lanes between Prospect Ave. and WI-83. After that, between WI-83 and WI-67. After that, the rest of the way.
I don't know how much longer until the Crawfish and Rock river bridges need to be replaced, but I think they're pretty old, and they're too close to the water. It would be senseless to replace those bridges without widening them to six lanes, otherwise they'll just have to do more work on them a few years after the new ones are installed.
Nonetheless, I will stand by my position that I-90/94 between US-151 in Madison and the I-90 split in Tomah should be a higher priority for expansion than I-94 between CTH-N and Milwaukee. Eight lanes are needed between US-151 and WI-78. Six lanes are needed between WI-78 and Tomah. Maybe I'm biased because I drive that stretch much more.
You're biased. Traffic count maps show more traffic in rural Jefferson County than between the Dells and Tomah.
I believe I've showed you this before:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2015.htm
Look at the difference in truck traffic. Trucks are slower, larger, and significantly more important than small cars.
That makes sense to me. There's plenty of ways to bypass I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee, and for the most part, I don't really see the need to use that section if you're not traveling between those two cities.
IMHO, the following needs to be done in the next 15-20 years.
1. I-94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between Madison and Milwaukee.
2. I-39/90/94 needs to be rebuilt and eight-laned between the Beltline and the I-39/WIS 78 interchange, including proper rebuilds of the system interchanges at the Beltline, I-94 and US 151.
3. I-90/94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between I-39/WIS 78 and WIS 13 in the Dells.
4. US 12 needs a Sauk City bypass built to complete the four lane between Madison and the Dells and provide a reliever to I-39/90/94 in the area. Also will need to remove all stoplights in the corridor to provide free flow.
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
Nonetheless, I will stand by my position that I-90/94 between US-151 in Madison and the I-90 split in Tomah should be a higher priority for expansion than I-94 between CTH-N and Milwaukee. Eight lanes are needed between US-151 and WI-78. Six lanes are needed between WI-78 and Tomah. Maybe I'm biased because I drive that stretch much more.
The AADT counts don't necessarily demand 8-laning north of Madison, but they don't take into account the Friday and Sunday weekend traffic to and from the Dells and points north. They also don't take into the account the worsening congestion because of all the Cheeseheads and FIBs causing wrecks because they can't put their phone down and concentrate on driving.
In WisDOT's materials discussing the replacement I-39/90/94 bridges over the Wisconsin River, they note the traffic spikes by up to 75% on summer weekends. That would push traffic levels well into 8-laning territory. With the recent 6-laning south of Madison, it very likely could spike even higher. Not surprisingly, WisDOT is rebuilding these bridges to accommodate 8 lanes of traffic (even if they're initially only striped for 6).
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-bridge/public-hearing-exhibits.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/i399094-bridge/public-hearing-exhibits.pdf)
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
IMHO, the following needs to be done in the next 15-20 years.
1. I-94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between Madison and Milwaukee.
2. I-39/90/94 needs to be rebuilt and eight-laned between the Beltline and the I-39/WIS 78 interchange, including proper rebuilds of the system interchanges at the Beltline, I-94 and US 151.
3. I-90/94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between I-39/WIS 78 and WIS 13 in the Dells.
4. US 12 needs a Sauk City bypass built to complete the four lane between Madison and the Dells and provide a reliever to I-39/90/94 in the area. Also will need to remove all stoplights in the corridor to provide free flow.
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
If/when 39/90/94 in Madison is made eight lanes, I want an interchange at Hanson Road/Eastpark Blvd.
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
IMHO, the following needs to be done in the next 15-20 years.
1. I-94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between Madison and Milwaukee.
2. I-39/90/94 needs to be rebuilt and eight-laned between the Beltline and the I-39/WIS 78 interchange, including proper rebuilds of the system interchanges at the Beltline, I-94 and US 151.
3. I-90/94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between I-39/WIS 78 and WIS 13 in the Dells.
4. US 12 needs a Sauk City bypass built to complete the four lane between Madison and the Dells and provide a reliever to I-39/90/94 in the area. Also will need to remove all stoplights in the corridor to provide free flow.
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
Yes. In addition to the I-43 expansion on the north side of Milwaukee starting next year, and the planned for expansion of I-41 between De Pere and Appleton, this is a good list and IMO the right priority order. (Although I might suggest that I-94 expansion east of the Minnesota border is more important than your #4, but that's just quibbling.)
And I agree with your final point.
Pointless bickering deleted. We're here to talk about roads...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 10, 2021, 09:00:06 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
IMHO, the following needs to be done in the next 15-20 years.
1. I-94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between Madison and Milwaukee.
2. I-39/90/94 needs to be rebuilt and eight-laned between the Beltline and the I-39/WIS 78 interchange, including proper rebuilds of the system interchanges at the Beltline, I-94 and US 151.
3. I-90/94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between I-39/WIS 78 and WIS 13 in the Dells.
4. US 12 needs a Sauk City bypass built to complete the four lane between Madison and the Dells and provide a reliever to I-39/90/94 in the area. Also will need to remove all stoplights in the corridor to provide free flow.
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
Yes. In addition to the I-43 expansion on the north side of Milwaukee starting next year, and the planned for expansion of I-41 between De Pere and Appleton, this is a good list and IMO the right priority order. (Although I might suggest that I-94 expansion east of the Minnesota border is more important than your #4, but that's just quibbling.)
And I agree with your final point.
I was talking about projects that need to be done that haven't had serious discussion yet. The I-41 and I-43 projects not only are being discussed, but are scheduled for construction in the not too distant future. Whereas there hasn't been any serious discussion on I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.
I really don't understand the logic of WisDOT of insisting every four lane widening needs to be a divided expressway/freeway with interchanges instead of just a five lane arterial. Imagine if projects like WIS 23, WIS 26, US 141, etc, had been built as five lane arterials instead of the divided expressway/freeway they ended up becoming. They would have saved money and possibly could have reinvested the savings into modernizing the Interstates. Divided expressways/freeways imho should only be used on regional routes like US 151 and WIS 29, not local routes like WIS 23.
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2021, 02:50:17 PM
You could probably justify in the not too distant future a 4th lane between I-39/90 and Hwy N in Cottage Grove as well since that part of Dane County is growing a lot. It already is 6 lanes for that stretch.
Definitely not before an upgrade to six lanes between CTH-N and WI-89. I've never encountered even remotely heavy traffic on the current six lane stretch west of CTH-N. I think a lot of Cottage Grove commuters use CTH-BB rather than I-94.
The section that probably needs six-laning the least is between WI-89 and WI-26, but if you're going to do the rest then you might as well do that since it's only 7 miles.
Overall, I think the first priority should be six lanes between Prospect Ave. and WI-83. After that, between WI-83 and WI-67. After that, the rest of the way.
I don't know how much longer until the Crawfish and Rock river bridges need to be replaced, but I think they're pretty old, and they're too close to the water. It would be senseless to replace those bridges without widening them to six lanes, otherwise they'll just have to do more work on them a few years after the new ones are installed.
Nonetheless, I will stand by my position that I-90/94 between US-151 in Madison and the I-90 split in Tomah should be a higher priority for expansion than I-94 between CTH-N and Milwaukee. Eight lanes are needed between US-151 and WI-78. Six lanes are needed between WI-78 and Tomah. Maybe I'm biased because I drive that stretch much more.
I was saying that the section between 39/90 and N could also be done in the not too distant future could use the expansion to 8. Obviously the part between N and Prospect needs to be 6 lanes first. And I agree that 90/94 to 6 lanes between Portage and Wis Dells is a higher priority. But we were talking about the 94 Madison and Milwaukee section.
Quote from: thspfc on October 10, 2021, 08:41:41 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
IMHO, the following needs to be done in the next 15-20 years.
1. I-94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between Madison and Milwaukee.
2. I-39/90/94 needs to be rebuilt and eight-laned between the Beltline and the I-39/WIS 78 interchange, including proper rebuilds of the system interchanges at the Beltline, I-94 and US 151.
3. I-90/94 needs to be rebuilt and six-laned between I-39/WIS 78 and WIS 13 in the Dells.
4. US 12 needs a Sauk City bypass built to complete the four lane between Madison and the Dells and provide a reliever to I-39/90/94 in the area. Also will need to remove all stoplights in the corridor to provide free flow.
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
If/when 39/90/94 in Madison is made eight lanes, I want an interchange at Hanson Road/Eastpark Blvd.
I doubt that happens. US 51/Stoughton Rd is the main north/south route for local traffic. I think WISDOT is trying to minimize the interchanges in Madison along I-90 since thru traffic is heavy the way it is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 10, 2021, 02:30:52 PM
Pointless bickering deleted. We're here to talk about roads...
And, we were talking about roads.
Quote from: thspfc on October 10, 2021, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 10, 2021, 02:30:52 PM
Pointless bickering deleted. We're here to talk about roads...
And, we were talking about roads.
No, you (both) were talking about trolls.
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
I really don't understand the logic of WisDOT of insisting every four lane widening needs to be a divided expressway/freeway with interchanges instead of just a five lane arterial. Imagine if projects like WIS 23, WIS 26, US 141, etc, had been built as five lane arterials instead of the divided expressway/freeway they ended up becoming. They would have saved money and possibly could have reinvested the savings into modernizing the Interstates. Divided expressways/freeways imho should only be used on regional routes like US 151 and WIS 29, not local routes like WIS 23.
Blech, what a dismal alternate universe.
I detest those abysmal 'Arkansas "freeways"'. Not appropriate for a rural corridor. Build it right or don't bother.
I am surprised there has been zero movement to expand 94 to six lanes in the rest of Waukesha County. I thought for sure I'd see something happening before 2020 if you were to ask me 15 years ago. Considering how much clout that area holds in state politics, it's strange there's been no movement that direction. And on top of that, it would be an easy expansion since nearly all of the structures can already accommodate a third lane in each direction.
I also drive the triplex fairly often, but in my observation, it functions adequately. I only see issues late on Sundays during marquee holiday weekends. Outside of those extraordinary hours, it can be heavy, but still moves fine. It's only the impatient speed demons who I see screwing things up, racing to catch up to the next pack of cars. Or inconsiderates hogging the middle lane; sometimes that's an issue. I do want a fourth lane between the Beltline and I-94, maybe an aux lane between the US 51 and WI 19 exits up there in DeForest. I don't see the urgent need to spend the 3 billion dollars it would probably take to expand the entire triplex to 8 lanes.
Especially when it will likely also cost 3 billion to expand the remaining four lane sections between MKE and MSN. I figure a billion per county is probably close, assuming it mirrors the methodology of other recent freeway expansions around the state.
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve
some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
The US 151 upgrade through the Driftless Area was being promoted by SW Wisconsin lawmakers when I lived in Madison in the 70's. The same effort needs to be done today for projects like six-laning I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee (long overdue) and I-41 between Appleton and DePere (definitely needed from Appleton to WI 55, not sure about the rest but it's the easier part to widen so best to do all at once). Getting buy-in from the lawmakers whose districts the highways are located is often the hardest part, especially the local mayors and county supervisors; just ask Illinois residents about suburban (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3197.0)Chicago (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6135.0). Money is always an issue, but it's never as much an issue as political support. And if the proposed highway goes through an ecologically sensitive area like almost all the Madison Beltline alternative proposals, it's probably not going to get built no matter how much some want it.
The question I have is whether the local political powers in Waukesha and Jefferson Counties have pushed a six-lane I-94 through their counties enough? Jefferson County officials may not have much pull after getting WI 26 upgraded. (I do hope WisDOT finishes the four-laning up CTH A to US 151 and get rid of that stupid four-way stop at WI 33. The rest of that corridor is nice.) I would think even liberal Dane County would support a six-lane I-94 to Milwaukee; there's no need to spend extra on a parallel bicycle corridor like WI 26 has as a bike trail already exists from Waukesha to Cottage Grove.
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
One could argue that if they were overkill back then, but "obviously" needed by now, that they made a good decision building it when they did.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
One could argue that if they were overkill back then, but "obviously" needed by now, that they made a good decision building it when they did.
100% this. Much better and easier to build something when ROW is cheaper and it's not boxed in by surrounding development, even if that means building a highway that is larger than needed for its first few years.
Quote from: thspfc on October 14, 2021, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
One could argue that if they were overkill back then, but "obviously" needed by now, that they made a good decision building it when they did.
100% this. Much better and easier to build something when ROW is cheaper and it's not boxed in by surrounding development, even if that means building a highway that is larger than needed for its first few years.
Both were built 40 years ago. A lot has changed over forty years and we've seen the reduced need for many proposed Rust Belt highways. Both of these bridges would have been built regardless because of Green Bay's tremendous growth over the last 40 years, especially when compared to similar-sized Rust Belt cities like Youngstown and Rochester. The rush to build the Tower Drive Bridge may be the reason a portion of it sank (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2013/09/25/interstate-43-bridge-closed-wisconsin/2873307/) and that it was built too low when Great Lakes levels are high (https://www.portofgreenbay.com/bridges) for St Lawrence Seaway vessels (https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/the-seaway/facts-figures/). Lake Michigan's max elevation was 582.3 ft ASL. The Tower Drive (now Frigo) Bridge is fine when lake levels are normal but ships need to add ballast, if possible, to slip under the bridge during high water times.
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 07:17:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 14, 2021, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
One could argue that if they were overkill back then, but "obviously" needed by now, that they made a good decision building it when they did.
100% this. Much better and easier to build something when ROW is cheaper and it's not boxed in by surrounding development, even if that means building a highway that is larger than needed for its first few years.
Both were built 40 years ago. A lot has changed over forty years and we've seen the reduced need for many proposed Rust Belt highways. Both of these bridges would have been built regardless because of Green Bay's tremendous growth over the last 40 years, especially when compared to similar-sized Rust Belt cities like Youngstown and Rochester. The rush to build the Tower Drive Bridge may be the reason a portion of it sank (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2013/09/25/interstate-43-bridge-closed-wisconsin/2873307/) and that it was built too low when Great Lakes levels are high (https://www.portofgreenbay.com/bridges) for St Lawrence Seaway vessels (https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/the-seaway/facts-figures/). Lake Michigan's max elevation was 582.3 ft ASL. The Tower Drive (now Frigo) Bridge is fine when lake levels are normal but ships need to add ballast, if possible, to slip under the bridge during high water times.
Green Bay isn't a "rust belt city."
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 10:35:45 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 07:17:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 14, 2021, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
One could argue that if they were overkill back then, but "obviously" needed by now, that they made a good decision building it when they did.
100% this. Much better and easier to build something when ROW is cheaper and it's not boxed in by surrounding development, even if that means building a highway that is larger than needed for its first few years.
Both were built 40 years ago. A lot has changed over forty years and we've seen the reduced need for many proposed Rust Belt highways. Both of these bridges would have been built regardless because of Green Bay's tremendous growth over the last 40 years, especially when compared to similar-sized Rust Belt cities like Youngstown and Rochester. The rush to build the Tower Drive Bridge may be the reason a portion of it sank (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2013/09/25/interstate-43-bridge-closed-wisconsin/2873307/) and that it was built too low when Great Lakes levels are high (https://www.portofgreenbay.com/bridges) for St Lawrence Seaway vessels (https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/the-seaway/facts-figures/). Lake Michigan's max elevation was 582.3 ft ASL. The Tower Drive (now Frigo) Bridge is fine when lake levels are normal but ships need to add ballast, if possible, to slip under the bridge during high water times.
Green Bay isn't a "rust belt city."
How do you figure?
Quote from: Rothman on October 14, 2021, 11:41:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 10:35:45 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 07:17:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 14, 2021, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
One could argue that if they were overkill back then, but "obviously" needed by now, that they made a good decision building it when they did.
100% this. Much better and easier to build something when ROW is cheaper and it's not boxed in by surrounding development, even if that means building a highway that is larger than needed for its first few years.
Both were built 40 years ago. A lot has changed over forty years and we've seen the reduced need for many proposed Rust Belt highways. Both of these bridges would have been built regardless because of Green Bay's tremendous growth over the last 40 years, especially when compared to similar-sized Rust Belt cities like Youngstown and Rochester. The rush to build the Tower Drive Bridge may be the reason a portion of it sank (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2013/09/25/interstate-43-bridge-closed-wisconsin/2873307/) and that it was built too low when Great Lakes levels are high (https://www.portofgreenbay.com/bridges) for St Lawrence Seaway vessels (https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/the-seaway/facts-figures/). Lake Michigan's max elevation was 582.3 ft ASL. The Tower Drive (now Frigo) Bridge is fine when lake levels are normal but ships need to add ballast, if possible, to slip under the bridge during high water times.
Green Bay isn't a "rust belt city."
How do you figure?
It's manufacturing base doesn't revolve around steel, coal or the auto industry. It's food and paper products.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 15, 2021, 06:45:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 14, 2021, 11:41:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 10:35:45 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 07:17:26 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 14, 2021, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 14, 2021, 03:15:55 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 14, 2021, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 12:33:42 AM
This is what WisDOT should have been pursuing instead of building unneeded four lane highways along corridors that don't need them.
As convenient as it is to blame WisDOT for everything (and they deserve some blame), those "unneeded" four lane highways don't get built without legislative approval. I remember Concrete Clete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_J._Vanderperren) making sure projects like the Tower Drive Bridge and WI 172 being built in Brown County; while one or the other was needed at the time, both were overkill back then though obviously both would have been needed by today. Ultimately, anything that does or doesn't get built is down to the politicians.
One could argue that if they were overkill back then, but "obviously" needed by now, that they made a good decision building it when they did.
100% this. Much better and easier to build something when ROW is cheaper and it's not boxed in by surrounding development, even if that means building a highway that is larger than needed for its first few years.
Both were built 40 years ago. A lot has changed over forty years and we've seen the reduced need for many proposed Rust Belt highways. Both of these bridges would have been built regardless because of Green Bay's tremendous growth over the last 40 years, especially when compared to similar-sized Rust Belt cities like Youngstown and Rochester. The rush to build the Tower Drive Bridge may be the reason a portion of it sank (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2013/09/25/interstate-43-bridge-closed-wisconsin/2873307/) and that it was built too low when Great Lakes levels are high (https://www.portofgreenbay.com/bridges) for St Lawrence Seaway vessels (https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/the-seaway/facts-figures/). Lake Michigan's max elevation was 582.3 ft ASL. The Tower Drive (now Frigo) Bridge is fine when lake levels are normal but ships need to add ballast, if possible, to slip under the bridge during high water times.
Green Bay isn't a "rust belt city."
How do you figure?
It's manufacturing base doesn't revolve around steel, coal or the auto industry. It's food and paper products.
Its population also isn't declining overall.
And never was. The population in Green Bay flatlined in the 80's, but then they started annexing more land in the 90's (particularly to the east) and grew some of their own suburbs. Since then, the economy in the entire Fox River Valley has diversified enough that they've been able to absorb a few paper mill closings up and down the Lower Fox.
Green Bay hasn't annexed any land of significant amount since the merger with the Town of Preble in 1964, which gave the city most of its land east of the East River.
I agree Interstate 94 between Madison and Milwaukee should be expanded to six lanes (and eight lanes east of STH-16). I'm not holding my breath, though. Outside of reconstructing the STH-73 interchange, some resurfacing projects and a few bridge replacements, the Interstate 94 corridor will likely remain as-is indefinitely.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 12, 2021, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
I really don’t understand the logic of WisDOT of insisting every four lane widening needs to be a divided expressway/freeway with interchanges instead of just a five lane arterial. Imagine if projects like WIS 23, WIS 26, US 141, etc, had been built as five lane arterials instead of the divided expressway/freeway they ended up becoming. They would have saved money and possibly could have reinvested the savings into modernizing the Interstates. Divided expressways/freeways imho should only be used on regional routes like US 151 and WIS 29, not local routes like WIS 23.
Blech, what a dismal alternate universe.
I detest those abysmal 'Arkansas "freeways"'. Not appropriate for a rural corridor. Build it right or don't bother.
I couldn’t agree more. WisDOT tried the “Arkansas freeway” on STH 29 between Wausau and Marathon City and look how long that lasted before they had to redo it. Those five-lane prototypes may have their purposes in suburban fringes (US 8 near St Croix Falls, STH 42/57 west of Sturgeon Bay, but not as rural expressways. I agree, do it right the first time.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 11, 2021, 05:13:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 12, 2021, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
I really don't understand the logic of WisDOT of insisting every four lane widening needs to be a divided expressway/freeway with interchanges instead of just a five lane arterial. Imagine if projects like WIS 23, WIS 26, US 141, etc, had been built as five lane arterials instead of the divided expressway/freeway they ended up becoming. They would have saved money and possibly could have reinvested the savings into modernizing the Interstates. Divided expressways/freeways imho should only be used on regional routes like US 151 and WIS 29, not local routes like WIS 23.
Blech, what a dismal alternate universe.
I detest those abysmal 'Arkansas "freeways"'. Not appropriate for a rural corridor. Build it right or don't bother.
I couldn't agree more. WisDOT tried the "Arkansas freeway" on STH 29 between Wausau and Marathon City and look how long that lasted before they had to redo it. Those five-lane prototypes may have their purposes in suburban fringes (US 8 near St Croix Falls, STH 42/57 west of Sturgeon Bay, but not as rural expressways. I agree, do it right the first time.
And they did do it right the first time on the backbone routes. The problem is they went overboard on the connector routes like WIS 23/26, US 10 Marshfield spur, etc. Those did not need to be expressway grade with interchanges. Those serve primarily local traffic, and they could have and should have been five lane arterials at best, or in cases like US 10 to Marshfield, reconstructed two lane roads. The resources building those could have been better used elsewhere, like rebuilding/widening I-94 throughout the entire state (a badly needed project).
When it comes to WI 26, I think WisDOT reacted to the negative backlash they got from some of their on-the-cheap bypasses by going whole-hog on that corridor. Immediately prior to that expansion, in the mid-00's, WisDOT had a number of new bypasses with high crash rates at some of the at-grade intersections. (Fond du Lac, Whitewater) I think that attention pushed them to go straight to the full-freeway build outs for the WI 26 bypasses in the ensuing decade.
Seems like I-94 could very well get some attention from the 5 billion highway dollars Wisconsin will get out of this 2021 infrastructure bill.
I figure WisDOT uses most of it to do the idle Stadium Interchange project, expand I-41 between Appleton and De Pere, and maybe expand 90/94 from Portage to the Dells. That probably eats up a bit over 4 billion; then spread the rest around the state to catch up on maintenance.
Quote from: I-39 on November 12, 2021, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 11, 2021, 05:13:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 12, 2021, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
I really don't understand the logic of WisDOT of insisting every four lane widening needs to be a divided expressway/freeway with interchanges instead of just a five lane arterial. Imagine if projects like WIS 23, WIS 26, US 141, etc, had been built as five lane arterials instead of the divided expressway/freeway they ended up becoming. They would have saved money and possibly could have reinvested the savings into modernizing the Interstates. Divided expressways/freeways imho should only be used on regional routes like US 151 and WIS 29, not local routes like WIS 23.
Blech, what a dismal alternate universe.
I detest those abysmal 'Arkansas "freeways"'. Not appropriate for a rural corridor. Build it right or don't bother.
I couldn't agree more. WisDOT tried the "Arkansas freeway" on STH 29 between Wausau and Marathon City and look how long that lasted before they had to redo it. Those five-lane prototypes may have their purposes in suburban fringes (US 8 near St Croix Falls, STH 42/57 west of Sturgeon Bay, but not as rural expressways. I agree, do it right the first time.
And they did do it right the first time on the backbone routes. The problem is they went overboard on the connector routes like WIS 23/26, US 10 Marshfield spur, etc. Those did not need to be expressway grade with interchanges. Those serve primarily local traffic, and they could have and should have been five lane arterials at best, or in cases like US 10 to Marshfield, reconstructed two lane roads. The resources building those could have been better used elsewhere, like rebuilding/widening I-94 throughout the entire state (a badly needed project).
I go back and forth about US 10 to Marshfield. Traffic volumes didn't justify it compared to other projects. But it provides a nice alternative to the Fox Valley for me now that it's done.
I-94 from Hudson to Elk Mound certainly has its issues, considering the heavy truck volumes and the Minnesota left lane hogs. There will be a future need for expansion sooner that I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 13, 2021, 07:24:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 12, 2021, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 11, 2021, 05:13:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 12, 2021, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
I really don't understand the logic of WisDOT of insisting every four lane widening needs to be a divided expressway/freeway with interchanges instead of just a five lane arterial. Imagine if projects like WIS 23, WIS 26, US 141, etc, had been built as five lane arterials instead of the divided expressway/freeway they ended up becoming. They would have saved money and possibly could have reinvested the savings into modernizing the Interstates. Divided expressways/freeways imho should only be used on regional routes like US 151 and WIS 29, not local routes like WIS 23.
Blech, what a dismal alternate universe.
I detest those abysmal 'Arkansas "freeways"'. Not appropriate for a rural corridor. Build it right or don't bother.
I couldn't agree more. WisDOT tried the "Arkansas freeway" on STH 29 between Wausau and Marathon City and look how long that lasted before they had to redo it. Those five-lane prototypes may have their purposes in suburban fringes (US 8 near St Croix Falls, STH 42/57 west of Sturgeon Bay, but not as rural expressways. I agree, do it right the first time.
And they did do it right the first time on the backbone routes. The problem is they went overboard on the connector routes like WIS 23/26, US 10 Marshfield spur, etc. Those did not need to be expressway grade with interchanges. Those serve primarily local traffic, and they could have and should have been five lane arterials at best, or in cases like US 10 to Marshfield, reconstructed two lane roads. The resources building those could have been better used elsewhere, like rebuilding/widening I-94 throughout the entire state (a badly needed project).
I go back and forth about US 10 to Marshfield. Traffic volumes didn't justify it compared to other projects. But it provides a nice alternative to the Fox Valley for me now that it's done.
I-94 from Hudson to Elk Mound certainly has its issues, considering the heavy truck volumes and the Minnesota left lane hogs. There will be a future need for expansion sooner that I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah.
US 10 to Marshfield was a total waste. It is redundant with WIS 29 to the north and does not save a lot of time.
I agree I-94 between the Mississippi River and WIS 29 in Elk Mound needs to be reconstructed and widened. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's a high priority for WisDOT.
Quote from: I-39 on November 13, 2021, 09:33:04 AM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 13, 2021, 07:24:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 12, 2021, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 11, 2021, 05:13:46 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 12, 2021, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: I-39 on October 10, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
I really don't understand the logic of WisDOT of insisting every four lane widening needs to be a divided expressway/freeway with interchanges instead of just a five lane arterial. Imagine if projects like WIS 23, WIS 26, US 141, etc, had been built as five lane arterials instead of the divided expressway/freeway they ended up becoming. They would have saved money and possibly could have reinvested the savings into modernizing the Interstates. Divided expressways/freeways imho should only be used on regional routes like US 151 and WIS 29, not local routes like WIS 23.
Blech, what a dismal alternate universe.
I detest those abysmal 'Arkansas "freeways"'. Not appropriate for a rural corridor. Build it right or don't bother.
I couldn't agree more. WisDOT tried the "Arkansas freeway" on STH 29 between Wausau and Marathon City and look how long that lasted before they had to redo it. Those five-lane prototypes may have their purposes in suburban fringes (US 8 near St Croix Falls, STH 42/57 west of Sturgeon Bay, but not as rural expressways. I agree, do it right the first time.
And they did do it right the first time on the backbone routes. The problem is they went overboard on the connector routes like WIS 23/26, US 10 Marshfield spur, etc. Those did not need to be expressway grade with interchanges. Those serve primarily local traffic, and they could have and should have been five lane arterials at best, or in cases like US 10 to Marshfield, reconstructed two lane roads. The resources building those could have been better used elsewhere, like rebuilding/widening I-94 throughout the entire state (a badly needed project).
I go back and forth about US 10 to Marshfield. Traffic volumes didn't justify it compared to other projects. But it provides a nice alternative to the Fox Valley for me now that it's done.
I-94 from Hudson to Elk Mound certainly has its issues, considering the heavy truck volumes and the Minnesota left lane hogs. There will be a future need for expansion sooner that I-90/94 between the Dells and Tomah.
US 10 to Marshfield was a total waste. It is redundant with WIS 29 to the north and does not save a lot of time.
It's overbuilt, but FWIW, the project was more about giving Marshfield a four lane connection to I-39. None of US-10, as I've said many times, is redundant to WI-29 at all.
Quote from: thspfc on November 13, 2021, 06:12:31 PMIt's overbuilt, but FWIW, the project was more about giving Marshfield a four lane connection to I-39. None of US-10, as I've said many times, is redundant to WI-29 at all.
The Marshfield spur is absolutely is redundant with WIS 29. Marshfield did not need a four lane connection and traffic coming from the west can use WIS 29 to I-39 to US 10 to go east.
Quote from: I-39 on November 14, 2021, 08:41:30 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 13, 2021, 06:12:31 PMIt's overbuilt, but FWIW, the project was more about giving Marshfield a four lane connection to I-39. None of US-10, as I've said many times, is redundant to WI-29 at all.
The Marshfield spur is absolutely is redundant with WIS 29. Marshfield did not need a four lane connection and traffic coming from the west can use WIS 29 to I-39 to US 10 to go east.
Read my post again. US-10 was upgraded solely because of Marshfield traffic. It did not NEED to be upgraded; but it was, rightfully so or not, because of Marshfield.
Quote from: thspfc on November 14, 2021, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 14, 2021, 08:41:30 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 13, 2021, 06:12:31 PMIt's overbuilt, but FWIW, the project was more about giving Marshfield a four lane connection to I-39. None of US-10, as I've said many times, is redundant to WI-29 at all.
The Marshfield spur is absolutely is redundant with WIS 29. Marshfield did not need a four lane connection and traffic coming from the west can use WIS 29 to I-39 to US 10 to go east.
Read my post again. US-10 was upgraded solely because of Marshfield traffic. It did not NEED to be upgraded; but it was, rightfully so or not, because of Marshfield.
I did read your post.
You said "
None of US-10, as I've said many times, is redundant to WI-29 at all."
That is completely false. The Marshfield spur is completely redundant to WIS 29.
The primary purpose of US-10 west of I-39 is to get to Marshfield. In that case, it is completely overbuilt but not really redundant to WI-29.
That's a distinction without a difference though.
Yes, it is a crime that I-94 hasn't been widened to serve the state's capital city and its largest one. Hopefully, it will happen eventually.
Don't hold your breath.
Quote from: I-39 on November 15, 2021, 08:46:12 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 14, 2021, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: I-39 on November 14, 2021, 08:41:30 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 13, 2021, 06:12:31 PMIt's overbuilt, but FWIW, the project was more about giving Marshfield a four lane connection to I-39. None of US-10, as I've said many times, is redundant to WI-29 at all.
The Marshfield spur is absolutely is redundant with WIS 29. Marshfield did not need a four lane connection and traffic coming from the west can use WIS 29 to I-39 to US 10 to go east.
Read my post again. US-10 was upgraded solely because of Marshfield traffic. It did not NEED to be upgraded; but it was, rightfully so or not, because of Marshfield.
I did read your post.
You said "None of US-10, as I've said many times, is redundant to WI-29 at all."
That is completely false. The Marshfield spur is completely redundant to WIS 29.
Try looking at a map sometime.