News:

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

Main Menu

WISDOT budget strained? Why not eliminate these state highways

Started by peterj920, October 08, 2015, 01:14:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

peterj920

I noticed that WISDOT hasn't turned any state highways to local control since WIS 175 between Oshkosh and Fond Du Lac in 2007.  There are several highways that I think could be transferred to local control:

WIS 127:  Probably the most useless state highway.  It parallels WIS 16 and doesn't connect with any towns at all. 

WIS 89 between US 18 and Fort Atkinson:  It parallels WIS 26 and it's not even important enough for WISDOT to construct an interchange with WIS 26. 

WIS 134:  A short spur route from US 12/18 to the small unincorporated community of London where it dead ends. 

WIS 152: Another short spur route from WIS 21 to the small unincorporated community of Mount Morris.

WIS 107 between Merrill and County S:  A road that only local traffic uses.  Has lots of curves, and dead ends at old US 51.  If you want a road that takes twice as long as US 51 takes between Merrill and Tomahawk, this is the road for you. 

WIS 187:  Stretch between WIS 156 and Shawano was turned back to local control years ago, the rest of the route is lightly traveled and the only 2 communities it connects with is the unincorporated community of Leeman, which doesn't even show on google maps and Shiocton. 

WIS 79:  Runs between WIS 128 and WIS 25 and those highways have access to I-94, while this road connects with US 12.  Only community along the route is Boyceville. 

WIS 162:  A road that winds through the countryside of Southwest Wisconsin and doesn't have any main connections with any main highways or communities.

WIS 75:  Entire route runs within 3 miles of US 45

WIS 175 north of I-41 in Milwaukee:  Serves local traffic and communities are well served by I-41, but could extend WIS 83 along WIS 175 up to WIS 33 so it terminates at a state highway and is able to stay connected with the state highway system. 

Any other ideas for roads that could be turned back to local control or does anyone dispute this list?


SEWIGuy

I'm not sure maintaining these highways are much of a strain on the WIDOT budget.  And the counties and municipalities are just as strained as WIDOT is anyway.

peterj920

I know it doesn't solve much but every little bit of savings counts.  I do wonder why these roads are maintained by the state.

DaBigE

Like SEWIGuy says, everyone else is just as strained if not more strained. All you'd be doing is shifting the cost, not eliminating it. That may actually make things worse, as instead of the whole state chipping in, the costs must be absorbed completely at the local level. Many municipalities are further behind in maintenance than WisDOT is. Saying WisDOT maintains the road is somewhat of a misnomer anyway, as the state contracts with the counties to do the majority of the work. Lighting, signals, and inspections are about the only things WisDOT does themselves anymore, outside of design and oversight.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

I-39

A better idea: raise the gas tax to bring in more money and cut down on unnecessary new projects/four lane expansions and focus on rebuilding/expanding existing highways, such as I-39/90 between the IL state line and Madison, I-94 between the IL state line and Milwaukee, the Verona Road project, the Zoo Interchange reconstruction, etc 

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: I-39 on October 08, 2015, 08:43:57 PM
A better idea: raise the gas tax to bring in more money and cut down on unnecessary new projects/four lane expansions and focus on rebuilding/expanding existing highways, such as I-39/90 between the IL state line and Madison, I-94 between the IL state line and Milwaukee, the Verona Road project, the Zoo Interchange reconstruction, etc 

Probably won't happen. If there's one thing stupid people hate more than bad roads, it's having to pay to fix said bad roads.  :angry:  :angry:
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

triplemultiplex

As an exercise in WI state highways that should revert to county roads because they are not important enough to be state highways, I would nominate WI 137 in Ashland/Bayfield Counties.
WI 57 could probably end where it merges with I-43 in Saukville rather than meander around the north half of metro Milwaukee.
WI 102 is better off a county road; especially northeast of Rib Lake.
WI 179 in Crawford County seems dubious.
WI 144 should probably end in West Bend rather than continuing all the way to I-41 at Slinger.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

peterj920

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 09, 2015, 01:07:02 AM
As an exercise in WI state highways that should revert to county roads because they are not important enough to be state highways, I would nominate WI 137 in Ashland/Bayfield Counties.
WI 57 could probably end where it merges with I-43 in Saukville rather than meander around the north half of metro Milwaukee.
WI 102 is better off a county road; especially northeast of Rib Lake.
WI 179 in Crawford County seems dubious.
WI 144 should probably end in West Bend rather than continuing all the way to I-41 at Slinger.

WIS 137 is an alternate route for US 2 and is used when US 2 has to be shut down at times in the winter.  There are freeway style gates that are at the roundabout with Wis 13 and the west end of Ashland.  I would keep WIS 102 since it serves Rib Lake and the community has 900 people.  Wis 112 and Wis 118 could be considered, but I do see that they're short cut routes between Wis 13 and US 2, bypassing Ashland. 

triplemultiplex

Quote from: peterj920 on October 09, 2015, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 09, 2015, 01:07:02 AM
As an exercise in WI state highways that should revert to county roads because they are not important enough to be state highways, I would nominate WI 137 in Ashland/Bayfield Counties.
WI 57 could probably end where it merges with I-43 in Saukville rather than meander around the north half of metro Milwaukee.
WI 102 is better off a county road; especially northeast of Rib Lake.
WI 179 in Crawford County seems dubious.
WI 144 should probably end in West Bend rather than continuing all the way to I-41 at Slinger.

WIS 137 is an alternate route for US 2 and is used when US 2 has to be shut down at times in the winter.  There are freeway style gates that are at the roundabout with Wis 13 and the west end of Ashland.  ... Wis 112 and Wis 118 could be considered, but I do see that they're short cut routes between Wis 13 and US 2, bypassing Ashland.
Perhaps if US 2 had a real bypass of Ashland, then all three of 'em could be turned back.
But the merits of that seem dubious.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

DandyDan

Just 2 I noticed that seemed to be missed:
1. US 61 should be rerouted onto WI 129 and US 61 going north from downtown Lancaster turned over
2. WI 106 going west into Albion from WI 73 can be turned over
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

SEWIGuy

Quote from: DandyDan on October 10, 2015, 02:50:12 AM
Just 2 I noticed that seemed to be missed:
1. US 61 should be rerouted onto WI 129 and US 61 going north from downtown Lancaster turned over
2. WI 106 going west into Albion from WI 73 can be turned over


Agreed on #1.  Half of what would be turned over is WI-35/81 anyway so you are only talking about the north end.

I'm pretty sure that the reason #2 hasn't happened is so the state maintains control of the bridge over I-39/94. 

Roadguy

Quote from: DaBigE on October 08, 2015, 02:01:04 PM
Like SEWIGuy says, everyone else is just as strained if not more strained. All you'd be doing is shifting the cost, not eliminating it. That may actually make things worse, as instead of the whole state chipping in, the costs must be absorbed completely at the local level. Many municipalities are further behind in maintenance than WisDOT is. Saying WisDOT maintains the road is somewhat of a misnomer anyway, as the state contracts with the counties to do the majority of the work. Lighting, signals, and inspections are about the only things WisDOT does themselves anymore, outside of design and oversight.

Agreed 100%, a transfer of jurisdiction is a shift, not an elimination.  All of the counties in the state are well behind on work and they don't make up maintenance costs for DOT roadways through the reimbursements even though they are paid to maintain them.

DOT is slowly getting out of the many areas listed above as well.  Soon all surveying will be consulted out in many of the regions (Survey crews have been re-assigned in some regions).  Electrician work is being consulted out as well (Electricians who retire or leave are not being replaced).  In the larger regions (SW, SE, and NE) Federal Highways has expressed a large concern there is not enough construction inspection being done by in house staff (some regions 90%+ is consulted out) and designs in larger regions are 70%+ consulted out.  Wisconsin DOT has turned into a pure oversight organization.

A few ideas for cost savings:
1.) Scoping projects in a right sized manner based on the new funding difficulties.  This is especially true for the majors program where the bulk of new construction occurs.  Flyovers for heavy movements make sense but loops for low volume movements with adequate acceleration/deceleration zones are huge cost savers.

2.) Focusing on the importance of traffic management systems for squeezing as much capacity as possible out of the existing system.  Especially in Milwaukee and Madison focusing on incident response and rapid removal.  Also in these areas focus on "low cost, high benefit" projects.  An example of those would be adding auxiliary lanes between exits, eliminating short lane drops between exits/intersections, or lengthening merge lanes for low speed ramps to improve system efficiency.  All low cost but high benefit projects.

3.) Want to reducing delays in the system at a low cost?  Focus on stoplight management.  DOT hands off many of the stoplights statewide to municipalities who are clueless in how to time and coordinate signal systems creating delays in the existing system.  Especially in areas where stoplights need to be coordinated across multiple cities, this policy is a failure as these communities hardly ever work with each other.  DOT needs to focus on corridors of signals versus signals on an individual basis.  Even if the locals keep the stoplights, DOT needs to put money into corridors for coordination on a minimum 5 year basis.  Also individually look at intersection configuration (dual left turns are currently put in based on a 300 veh/hour basis, instead focus on putting them in if coordination dictates their use).  Move to more of a lead/lag left turn phasing for coordination purposes and if not everyone makes it through one cycle on a side road in the peak 15 minutes, they will make the next green (Have to do this sometimes to keep the major roadway flowing).

SEWIGuy

I really like your post Roadguy.  I have been harping for awhile that WIDOT needs to focus its major projects on upgrading existing corridors to add capacity rather than four-laning additional two lane corridors. 

The Ghostbuster

I think state highways should be reverted to county or local highways only if there are mostly underutilized. Otherwise, they should remain.

noelbotevera

Can we include interstates?  :sombrero:

Say if we could, I'd eliminate all of I-41 and I-43 south of Milwaukee.

SSOWorld

Quote from: noelbotevera on October 13, 2015, 09:15:52 PM
Can we include interstates?  :sombrero:

Say if we could, I'd eliminate all of I-41 and I-43 south of Milwaukee.
considering 43 south of Milwaukee was the product of a "shield required to raise speed limit in 1995", but then by law the limit would become 65 again.
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

Quote from: noelbotevera on October 13, 2015, 09:15:52 PM
Can we include interstates?  :sombrero:

Say if we could, I'd eliminate all of I-41 and I-43 south of Milwaukee.


Why I-43 south of Milwaukee?  It has about as much traffic as it does north of Milwaukee.  If any interstate is to be demoted it would be I-39.  Between Portage and Stevens Point, it is the lightest traveled interstate in Wisconsin.

jwolfer

Quote from: noelbotevera on October 13, 2015, 09:15:52 PM
Can we include interstates?  :sombrero:

Say if we could, I'd eliminate all of I-41 and I-43 south of Milwaukee.
Changing the sign would do nothing other than the additional cost of changing  them to SR shields.. The state still has the same maintenance cost either way

peterj920

It would be foolish to demote an interstate or any road that's on the national highway system because they're eligible for federal highway funds.  I'm pretty sure that the roads I listed in the beginning won't be getting any federal funds unless there's a bridge involved.   

Rothman

Quote from: peterj920 on October 14, 2015, 12:13:38 PM
It would be foolish to demote an interstate or any road that's on the national highway system because they're eligible for federal highway funds.  I'm pretty sure that the roads I listed in the beginning won't be getting any federal funds unless there's a bridge involved.   

There's actually more flexibility with federal funding than what you've described.  The National Highway System is essentially a subset of roads that are eligible for federal-aid.  However, the NHS is the only system upon which National Highway Performance Program funds can be spent -- a huge amount of funding.  That said, the broader system of federal-aid eligible roads is eligible for a lot of the remaining federal fund sources, with Surface Transportation Program funds probably being the largest (which can be used for paving and all sorts of minimal work (e.g., guiderail replacement, crack sealing, etc.).

I'd imagine that even with the demotion of I-43 or I-39 that the road would remain on the NHS.  However, let's assume that it wouldn't for whatever reason (i.e., AADT/VMT plummets...widespread plague...reduction to a country two-laner...).  That would hurt, since WI would lose NHPP eligibility, but not as much as if the state took even more drastic steps to somehow make it not eligible for federal-aid at all...and it's really hard for me to see how a state could even do that -- even locally-managed roads can use STP-Flex funds, for example.

Anyway...when it comes to federal aid, things aren't as strict as they may seem, that's all.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

jreuschl

Quote from: noelbotevera on October 13, 2015, 09:15:52 PM
Can we include interstates?  :sombrero:

Say if we could, I'd eliminate all of I-41 and I-43 south of Milwaukee.
And replace I-43 to Beloit with what? I'm guessing that was a mistake and you really didn't mean that.

Interstate grade County highway would be interesting!

SM-N910P


peterj920

Quote from: jreuschl on October 16, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 13, 2015, 09:15:52 PM
Can we include interstates?  :sombrero:

Say if we could, I'd eliminate all of I-41 and I-43 south of Milwaukee.
And replace I-43 to Beloit with what? I'm guessing that was a mistake and you really didn't mean that.

Interstate grade County highway would be interesting!

SM-N910P

I-43 southwest of Milwaukee was originally built as WIS 15.  Since I-43 took over, WIS 15 was recommissioned as a new 4-lane state highway between I-41 and Greenville.  It also took over old US 45 between Greenville and New London.  The stretch of Wis 76 between Wis 96 and Greenville was transferred to local control and is now County GV.  The remaining 2 lane portion of WIS 15 is going to be upgraded to 4 lanes in the future, but the budget is pushing back the project.

Mrt90

With all the savings from eliminating all those state highways, can we add one back that used to be a state highway?  I think Hwy 142 should go all the way from Burlington to Hwy 32 in Kenosha (or at least to Hwy 31 or to the Kenosha city limits) the way it used to before the portion east of I-94 was turned over to the county and became Hwy S.  No one calls it Hwy S, and if you tell someone in Kenosha that something is on Hwy S or off of Hwy S they just look at you funny.  The exit off the I-94/I-41 is weird being both the Hwy 142 and Hwy S exit for the same road in opposite directions.  It is one of the main I-94/I-41 exits to the north side of Kenosha, and it seems like the 4th largest city in Wisconsin should have a state highway leading to it off of the interstate.  There is also a new Amazon Fulfillment Center and a new industrial park off of that exit and I'm sure those businesses would prefer to give directions that include a state highway (just like the Fox Valley businesses preferred an interstate designation over US41).

SEWIGuy

Quote from: Mrt90 on October 16, 2015, 10:00:33 AM
With all the savings from eliminating all those state highways, can we add one back that used to be a state highway?  I think Hwy 142 should go all the way from Burlington to Hwy 32 in Kenosha (or at least to Hwy 31 or to the Kenosha city limits) the way it used to before the portion east of I-94 was turned over to the county and became Hwy S.  No one calls it Hwy S, and if you tell someone in Kenosha that something is on Hwy S or off of Hwy S they just look at you funny.  The exit off the I-94/I-41 is weird being both the Hwy 142 and Hwy S exit for the same road in opposite directions.  It is one of the main I-94/I-41 exits to the north side of Kenosha, and it seems like the 4th largest city in Wisconsin should have a state highway leading to it off of the interstate. There is also a new Amazon Fulfillment Center and a new industrial park off of that exit and I'm sure those businesses would prefer to give directions that include a state highway (just like the Fox Valley businesses preferred an interstate designation over US41).


You mean besides the two (three if you include WI-165) that already exist?

(I agree with you though.)   :nod:


noelbotevera

Quote from: peterj920 on October 16, 2015, 02:24:07 AM
Quote from: jreuschl on October 16, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 13, 2015, 09:15:52 PM
Can we include interstates?  :sombrero:

Say if we could, I'd eliminate all of I-41 and I-43 south of Milwaukee.
And replace I-43 to Beloit with what? I'm guessing that was a mistake and you really didn't mean that.

Interstate grade County highway would be interesting!

SM-N910P

I-43 southwest of Milwaukee was originally built as WIS 15.  Since I-43 took over, WIS 15 was recommissioned as a new 4-lane state highway between I-41 and Greenville.  It also took over old US 45 between Greenville and New London.  The stretch of Wis 76 between Wis 96 and Greenville was transferred to local control and is now County GV.  The remaining 2 lane portion of WIS 15 is going to be upgraded to 4 lanes in the future, but the budget is pushing back the project.
I-43 south of Milwaukee is useless because you can take I-94 west to I-90 or I-94 east to Chicago.



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.