News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Wisconsin notes

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

Previous topic - Next topic

hobsini2

Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.

Ok, let me say this for the record. I do support finishing the freeway between Madison and Elkhorn in principle, but I only believe it should be built if the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension is built (which will probably never happen). If you extend the freeway from Elkhorn to Madison, it is going to create an even bigger bottleneck at the state line than there is now, further congesting Lake County.

What I think needs to happen (in an ideal world), is IDOT/WisDOT need to discuss moving the end of the US 12 freeway further west closer to IL-47 (east of Hebron) so they can route it around Glacial Park, avoiding the environmental impacts, then they just find a way to route it around Volo Blog and then presto! The Richmond-Waukegan corridor can be constructed.
Then why are you trying to play devil's advocate?

Think about this though. The "bottleneck" in Richmond would be Illinois' problem to deal with meaning they might actually get off their asses and do something about extending the US 12 freeway.

As to what to do with the Volo bog etc, I did that map about 3 months ago. Did you see it?
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)


I-39

Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 08:25:19 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 07, 2015, 01:47:21 PM
US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.

Ok, let me say this for the record. I do support finishing the freeway between Madison and Elkhorn in principle, but I only believe it should be built if the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension is built (which will probably never happen). If you extend the freeway from Elkhorn to Madison, it is going to create an even bigger bottleneck at the state line than there is now, further congesting Lake County.

What I think needs to happen (in an ideal world), is IDOT/WisDOT need to discuss moving the end of the US 12 freeway further west closer to IL-47 (east of Hebron) so they can route it around Glacial Park, avoiding the environmental impacts, then they just find a way to route it around Volo Blog and then presto! The Richmond-Waukegan corridor can be constructed.
Then why are you trying to play devil's advocate?

Think about this though. The "bottleneck" in Richmond would be Illinois' problem to deal with meaning they might actually get off their asses and do something about extending the US 12 freeway.

As to what to do with the Volo bog etc, I did that map about 3 months ago. Did you see it?

Yes, I did, and it's a wonderful idea, but unrealistic because Illinois doesn't think outside the box........

I'm "playing devils advocate" because I know Illinois can't get ANYTHING done when it comes to highways (and infrastructure in general). So if you think finishing the freeway between Elkhorn and Madison will get Illinois to construct FAP 420, forget it. FAP 420 will never be constructed, they won't be willing to route it around environmentally sensitive areas. So why waste the money finishing the US 12 freeway when you have I-39/90 between the state line and Madison and I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee that needs reconstruction/widening? Those should be done first. Plus, the pavement on US 12 between Genoa City and Elkhorn is going to need reconstruction within the next decade, that will only add to the cost of any freeway extension.


SEWIGuy

Cutting 20 minutes between Madison and Lake Geneva isn't really worth the $$$ because, really, how much traffic are we really talking about?  How many vehicle drive between the two cities on a daily basis?  Almost all of the traffic that uses US-12 is local.  It gets a little busier on summer weekends, but not significantly so.

Right now, US-12 could use an upgrade between Madison and Cambridge to a four lane expressway due to weekday commuting.

Eventually "cutting the corner" between Elkhorn and Whitewater will also be necessary, as well as upgrades such as a Fort Atkinson bypass, but really the current set up between Elkhorn and Cambridge is fine for the time being.

SEWIGuy


peterj920

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2015, 12:54:28 PM
Article on the 70 mph that includes a map of where it will be signed.  Only on interstates.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/traffic/coming-to-wisconsin-this-week-70-mph-speed-limit-signs-b99519839z1-307383871.html

That map was the original plan, since that map was made the mileage of roads signed at 70 has gone up from 726 miles to 810 miles, an increase of 84 additional miles.  I see new posts along I-43 at the 172 and WIS 57 interchanges, which I'm assuming will be reduced speed ahead signs to 65 so a 70 mph zone may be extended north of where the DOT originally said they would end the 70 mph zone.  I'll post an update on what I find out this week. 

peterj920

Crews were posting Speed Limit 70 signs on I-43 at the Leo Frigo Bridge so the DOT must have reversed their decision to leave that section at 65.  Originally, the 70 zone was supposed to start south of Green Bay.  I saw an article that MNDOT is going to sign I-94 at 70 MPH east of the 494/694 Interchange so I'm assuming the stretch in Hudson will be 70 also.

Molandfreak

Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

The Ghostbuster

Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.

SSOWorld

Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.  plus now Hudson being slowed down is moot since MnDOT's kicking its short part of I-94 between there and St Paul (see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6510.msg2071507#msg2071507 for detail and discussion of that).  Keep in mind though that this is the Journal Sentinel's interpretation of WisDOT's report.  It could be wrong.
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.

SSOWorld

Side note:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/371-co-exec.htm

beware - don't stop and photograph the signs ;) just shoot while driving :awesomeface:
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.

Molandfreak

Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

peterj920

Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 

SSOWorld

Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Well then... if it's 70 to the Frigo - As you said - I can safely assume that the Tomah and Cascade Interchanges will be straight through 70.  They may have already loosened up.
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.

invincor

I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: invincor on June 16, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 

MN isn't increasing the limit on I-94 until Wednesday.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

SSOWorld

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 16, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: invincor on June 16, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
I just drove on I-94 from exit 10 west into Minnesota and back. The speed limit signs in Wisconsin are all now at 70 in both directions, Hudson included.  The ones in Minnesota are still at 65 as of now. 

MN isn't increasing the limit on I-94 until Wednesday.
Yep - WisDOT did soften up :sombrero:  RE: Minnesota - still decent timing.  Tells me they communicated.
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.

peterj920

Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well. 

mgk920

Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well.

*No* speed limit sign changes on I-41 in the Appleton area as of Tuesday afternoon (2015-06-16).

Mike

SEWIGuy

70 mpg signs have been posted on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee.

SSOWorld

MPG??

Mike - They probably will be up today
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.

hobsini2

Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 16, 2015, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 01:40:42 PM
Why reduce the speed limit for Tomah? Plus, nothing on U.S. 53, WIS 29, or even U.S. 151? failure.
Seems that they're reducing it at the rural freeway interchanges (Tomah, Cascade).

WisDOT's timid.  They'll eventually loosen things up once they realize that the need for it isn't there.
I hope they do. This is just as bad as Iowa slowing the speed limit on I-35 just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Again, that map the the Journal Sentinel put up is inaccurate.  According to the DOT's descriptions, I-90/I-94 will be at 70, plus I-94 will be at 70 around Eau Claire, citing an article in the Eau Claire news.  I was on I-43 today and it's being signed at 70 starting at the Leo Frigo Bridge, farther north than WIS 29 that was stated in the original press release.  Since the original press release, 84 miles of roads will be signed at 70.  I have not checked US 41/US 141 north of Green Bay, but will update if that is at 70 because if it is, that means that non-interstate freeways like US 53 will get a 70 mph speed limit. 
Well then... if it's 70 to the Frigo - As you said - I can safely assume that the Tomah and Cascade Interchanges will be straight through 70.  They may have already loosened up.
Also the map had the 70 zone end at the Milwaukee/Racine Co Line. The article though said it would change at Rawson Ave which is 5 miles further north.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

hobsini2

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.
You got to remember though that the same was said about any further expansion of the Wis 26 bypass of Ft Atkinson. That was a super 2 to start. It didn't take long for them to not only make it 4 lanes but to extend it to a 4 lane divided highway on both ends. If the area pop continues to grow and the traffic on 12 gets worse, don't be surprised if 10 years from now the Whitewater bypass is extended and widened to at least a divided highway if not a full freeway.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

mgk920

Quote from: mgk920 on June 17, 2015, 01:34:04 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 16, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
Checked US 41/141 North of Green Bay, the speed limit shows 65 so it looks like non-interstate freeways will stay at 65 for now.
On I-43, I should clarify that the speed limit is 70 across the bridge, but it drops to 55 just west of the bridge because of the work zone at the I-41 interchange.  At the WIS 57 and WIS 172 exits, there's Speed Limit 65 Ahead signs posted since those roads will stay at 65.  I would like to know if the speed limit still drops to 65 at the 441 interchange in Appleton or if the DOT changed their mind and decided to sign that at 70 as well.

*No* speed limit sign changes on I-41 in the Appleton area as of Tuesday afternoon (2015-06-16).

As of about 16:30 Wednesday (2015-06-17), except for the construction zone from WI 15 south to US 10/WI 441 (southbound) and from Breezewood Ln-Bell St in Neenah to WI 15 (northbound), the new signs are all in place on I-41 through the Appleton area - including between the two WI 441 interchanges.  There is no drop in the limit.

One impression driving through it all is that there is no apparent change in driving behavior, other than for a perceptible slight DECREASE in average speed.  Traffic seemed a little more relaxed, too.

Mike

GeekJedi

From the looks of it, WisDOT simply opted to replace pretty much all the 65MPH zones with 70MPH zones, without "transitions" from 70 -> 65 -> 55. It actually makes more sense this way, IMHO.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

GeekJedi

Quote from: hobsini2 on June 17, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
Getting back to the US 12 corridor between Madison and Illinois, about the only new thing that will come to the corridor in the near future is the conversion of the two intersections of Highway 73 into a jug-handle interchange. The Fort Atkinson Bypass was halted a few years ago, the Whitewater bypass will likely remain as is for some time to come, and the connection between that bypass and the freeway at Elkhorn may never be built.

You got to remember though that the same was said about any further expansion of the Wis 26 bypass of Ft Atkinson. That was a super 2 to start. It didn't take long for them to not only make it 4 lanes but to extend it to a 4 lane divided highway on both ends. If the area pop continues to grow and the traffic on 12 gets worse, don't be surprised if 10 years from now the Whitewater bypass is extended and widened to at least a divided highway if not a full freeway.

WI 26 and US 12 are two completely different animals. I drive both several times a week, and US 12 is a ghost road compared to 26. I would also think that there's not going to be a huge explosion in pop counts in Whitewater or Fort anytime soon. I don't see the bypass widened for more like 15-20 years. A lot of the originally predicted traffic will likely never materialize with the upgrades happening on I-90 and the speed limit increases. Basically removes the "appeal" of a US 12 routing.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"



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.