News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Wisconsin notes

Started by mgk920, May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

DaBigE

#475
Quote from: Roadguy on February 08, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

There is a study/project idea being kicked around that involves redesigning the S-curve to the south of the old plant at the very least. How much further south the reconstruction would go is anyone's guess at this point. In any case, the pavement along that stretch of US 12 is in very poor shape.

QuoteI'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.

Already discussed here:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25 (start around reply #30)

With the reconstruction that happened just the other year from Wis 60 to the west end of Sauk City, a lot of people would be pissed if the idea would be floated any time in the next decade...especially the Dairy Queen that closed because of the latest project.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister


I-39

Quote from: DaBigE on February 09, 2015, 12:20:38 AM
Quote from: Roadguy on February 08, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
This leaves the last 2 lane stretch between Leuders Road at the edge of Sauk City to County Road Z just south of the old ammunition plant.  Does anyone know if there are plans to expand this section to 4 lanes?

There is a study/project idea being kicked around that involves redesigning the S-curve to the south of the old plant at the very least. How much further south the reconstruction would go is anyone's guess at this point. In any case, the pavement along that stretch of US 12 is in very poor shape.

QuoteI'd bring up the whole Sauk City bypass discussion but I know at this point that is not going to happen.  I have heard politically this type of project is a no-go.

Already discussed here:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14516.25 (start around reply #30)

With the reconstruction that happened just the other year from Wis 60 to the west end of Sauk City, a lot of people would be pissed if the idea would be floated any time in the next decade...especially the Dairy Queen that closed because of the latest project.

Frankly, I don't see the entire U.S 12 corridor becoming a freeway between Madison and Wisconsin Dells. While it perhaps may eliminate the need to further improve I-39/90/94 between Madison and the Dells, I don't see how they could build a Sauk City bypass without significant environmental impacts. Same goes for converting the segment between Sauk City and Baraboo (it goes through some forests around Devils Lake).

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it at this point.

on_wisconsin

#477
Quote from: adamlanfort on February 09, 2015, 11:29:55 AMSame goes for converting the segment between Sauk City and Baraboo (it goes through some forests around Devils Lake).

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it at this point.

The expressway portion south of the Baraboo will extend past The Point of Rocks to the current expressway. As for the freeway thing, this area of US 12 doesn't pass that close to Devils Lake SP/ SNA (and the part that does border it is already an expressway).

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/swregion/12/south/docs/map-details.pdf

https://goo.gl/maps/FmJQ9




I wonder if WisDOT where to propose, say a six lane surface arterial around Sauk City instead of a full freeway, there would be less push back from the locals? 
"Speed does not kill, suddenly becoming stationary... that's what gets you" - Jeremy Clarkson

triplemultiplex

The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

SEWIGuy

Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 11, 2015, 11:03:50 PM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.


And it simply isn't needed.  Too many road advocates want something to be completely non-stop no matter the cost, when current set ups are usually fine.  (See the WI-26 thread for a couple of examples.)  Adding a minute or two onto a journey isn't going to kill anyone.

I-39

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 12, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 11, 2015, 11:03:50 PM
The Sauk City bypass is not likely to happen because all undeveloped land south of the city along the river is part of the Lower Wisconsin River State Wildlife Area.  This is basically everything downstream from the old railroad bridge.


And it simply isn't needed.  Too many road advocates want something to be completely non-stop no matter the cost, when current set ups are usually fine.  (See the WI-26 thread for a couple of examples.)  Adding a minute or two onto a journey isn't going to kill anyone.

No, it will be needed, but only if U.S 12 is converted to freeway from Middleton to just shy of Sauk City (like they are studying) and the freeway is extended south from Baraboo. Not building a Sauk City bypass will create a bottleneck through the city.

midwesternroadguy

Sauk City engaged in some land use planning for the bypass, and has "mapped" a corridor.  I agree that some environmental issues will make it difficult to sell this project, even though I think future counts will warrant it someday.  I remember how badly US 12 would back up prior to the recent expansion.   Once I saw it backed up on the weekend to County Trunk Z from the stoplights in Sauk City. 

SSOWorld

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=28503#.VOEyEy4mlIM

From the trucking company perspective - seems that some trucking companies advocating a split speed limit were and are a thorn in the side of the effort to "align" the speed limit in WI with reality on the freeways and the neighboring states other than Chicago (oh wait... :bigass: )
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

SEWIGuy

My anecdotal experience is that split speed limits for trucks are less safe than one, uniform limit.  Nothing like a bunch of cars barreling down on a couple trucks going 5-10 mph slower.

I do have a question about something Tittl's says in his press release:

"It's also about making our highways safer,"  Tittl said in a news release. "Increasing the speed limit can reduce congestion that often contributes to unsafe driving and accidents."  

Is that true?  Can increasing the speed limit cause safer conditions by limiting congestion?  Or does it make the congestion just move faster?

DaBigE

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
My anecdotal experience is that split speed limits for trucks are less safe than one, uniform limit.  Nothing like a bunch of cars barreling down on a couple trucks going 5-10 mph slower.

Except even with that uniform limit there are several trucking companies utilizing speed governors to limit their trucks to max speed around 60 mph to conserve fuel. I kinda like the idea of the split limit since the faster a fully-loaded truck is going, the more carnage there will be if it crashes into someone else.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

colinstu

Split limits are a waste / unsafe.

Differences in car speed are one of the biggest contributors/factors to collisions and accidents.

Not to mention all the extra signage needed to display both limits.

Keep the limit the same for both, or increase it for both, they shouldn't bother splitting it.

mgk920

Europeans would beg to differ - nearly all big-rigs 'across the pond' are governed at 80 km/h(!), and yet they ply the same highways that everyone else, even the most powerful sports cars, do.  The only thing is that they strictly adhere to the 'slower traffic keep right' rule.

Mike

tchafe1978


jwags


dave069


Fox 11 News

   
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Wisconsin lawmakers have hit the gas pedal on a bill that would increase the maximum speed limit on some state highways and freeways.
   
The state Assembly approved the bill on a 76-22 vote Tuesday. The bill allows the Department of Transportation to increase speed limits to 70 mph in approved areas, up from the current 65 mph limit.
   
Opponents said increasing speed limits is too dangerous. Rep. Dana Wachs, an Eau Claire Democrat, said he would not support the bill because it could increase deaths on Wisconsin roadways. Rep. John Spiros, a Manitowoc Republican, warned commercial vehicles such as semi-trailers should have a lower speed limit. But their concerns fell on deaf ears.
   
The measure goes next to the state Senate.

Fox 11 News

A man with a drone posted video of the Hwy 96 new bridge construction in Wrightstown (south of Green Bay):

https://youtu.be/plKSTyCL1-g

mgk920

#492
^^
That is a LOT more elaborate and extensive than I was expecting for that crossing - a high-level crossing that connects significantly inland on the southeast side while eliminating that 'jog' at County 'DD' on the northwest side.

Mike

texaskdog

I got pulled over there last summer.  The 2 lane highway is ridiculous and when it opens up, you go

JREwing78

Madison– Republicans in the Legislature have reached an agreement to raise Wisconsin's speed limit on some highways to 70 miles per hour, breaking a two-year legislative stalemate and likely ending the state's status as a lone island of 65 mph limits in the Midwest.

Under the deal, the state Department of Transportation would decide which major highways in the state would be bumped up to 70 mph but could not raise the limits on roads with at-grade crossings. Those are intersections in which other roads run directly across the highways without on or off-ramps, overpasses or underpasses.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Lawmakers agree to 70 mph limit on major roads
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html

mgk920

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 28, 2015, 11:12:49 PM
Madison– Republicans in the Legislature have reached an agreement to raise Wisconsin's speed limit on some highways to 70 miles per hour, breaking a two-year legislative stalemate and likely ending the state's status as a lone island of 65 mph limits in the Midwest.

Under the deal, the state Department of Transportation would decide which major highways in the state would be bumped up to 70 mph but could not raise the limits on roads with at-grade crossings. Those are intersections in which other roads run directly across the highways without on or off-ramps, overpasses or underpasses.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Lawmakers agree to 70 mph limit on major roads
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-agree-to-70-mph-limit-on-major-roads-b99490225z1-301591751.html

It's a start.

:-/

Mike

GeekJedi

As much as I'd love to see a road like 151 between Sun Prairie and Fond du Lac open up to 70, I agree that the at-grade intersections make that unlikely. I'm surprised they allowed 65 on those stretches to be honest.

Not that I have an opinion either way, just that I know that Wisconsin tends to be conservative about that kind of thing.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

JREwing78

I think it's a good compromise. Keep in mind the stretches with at-grades also allow farm traffic, which I wasn't expecting the first time I drove US 151.

hobsini2

I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

TheHighwayMan3561

I have no problem with 65 on expressways, but I do think 70 should be strictly reserved for full freeways. US 53 for example I think is not a 70 road after having driven between EC and Superior a number of times.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running



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.