Madison Area

[SEWIGuy]

Keep in mind, that when a highway designation is made, there must be compensation by either removing or reducing another one.

I always thought that was a dumb rule.

I agree it's a dumb rule. Unfortunately, it's probably needed because otherwise the state's supported highway mileage would have ballooned out of control because legislators like nothing better than getting the state to pay for their districts' road projects.

The highways are run through legislation and voted on before they become reality. Correct?

You mean the highway construction?  Unless it's major, I doubt the specific projects are outlined in the budget. My guess is they allocate money to various programs than WIDOT determines how to allocate the money.

[invincor]

There is, somewhere in the law, a "salary cap" of state-owned highway mileage that WIDOT can't exceed without the law being changed by the legislature.  They're up against that cap and have been for a very long time, thus if there is ever need to "promote" a county or other local highway to state-owned status, there has to be a nearly-equal trade back where the counties/locals assume ownership of a "demoted" state highway.  And that trade can only happen if both sides of it agree to it.  Neither side can force a trade on the other. 

[hobsini2]

Keep in mind, that when a highway designation is made, there must be compensation by either removing or reducing another one.

I always thought that was a dumb rule.

I agree it's a dumb rule. Unfortunately, it's probably needed because otherwise the state's supported highway mileage would have ballooned out of control because legislators like nothing better than getting the state to pay for their districts' road projects.

The highways are run through legislation and voted on before they become reality. Correct?

You mean the highway construction?  Unless it's major, I doubt the specific projects are outlined in the budget. My guess is they allocate money to various programs than WIDOT determines how to allocate the money.

No. I mean the actual routing of the highways before they are marked in the field.

[triplemultiplex]

The Wisconsin legislature plays no part in route numbering.  That's entirely within the purview of WisDOT.  Minnesota this is not.

The mileage limit thing; they used to do that based on DOT district, not county.  A much more reasonable way to stay under their mileage cap.  Doing it by county is stupid.  Especially when the populations, and therefore traffic volumes in some counties are far larger than they were when this dumb system ossified a couple decades ago.
Meanwhile, depopulating rural counties get to hang on to every single mile of state highway now?  Because it's not like they'll ever add mileage and need to free some up in the same county.  It's ridiculous.  Dane County has like three times the population it had 50 years ago, but they're stuck with the same mileage of state highways under the current system.  Meanwhile, some glorified county road to basically nowhere gets to stick around basically forever now.  Time to shake the system up.

[hobsini2]

The Wisconsin legislature plays no part in route numbering.  That's entirely within the purview of WisDOT.  Minnesota this is not.

The mileage limit thing; they used to do that based on DOT district, not county.  A much more reasonable way to stay under their mileage cap.  Doing it by county is stupid.  Especially when the populations, and therefore traffic volumes in some counties are far larger than they were when this dumb system ossified a couple decades ago.
Meanwhile, depopulating rural counties get to hang on to every single mile of state highway now?  Because it's not like they'll ever add mileage and need to free some up in the same county.  It's ridiculous.  Dane County has like three times the population it had 50 years ago, but they're stuck with the same mileage of state highways under the current system.  Meanwhile, some glorified county road to basically nowhere gets to stick around basically forever now.  Time to shake the system up.

Absolutely agree. There are some county highways that should be upgraded to state highways like Dane County N and Dodge County A. Then there's Wis 68, Wis 118, Wis 129 (Should be Bypass US 61).

[The Ghostbuster]

STH 68 once connected Fox Lake with Port Washington. The present-day Fox Lake-to-Waupun alignment was part of STH 33 until 33 and 68 swapped routes in 1930 (STH 49 east of Waupun should be part of STH 68, and I'm not the only one who thinks so). I have no opinion on STH 118. As for STH 129 around Lancaster, instead of making it Bypass US 61, I would make it part of mainline US 61 (STH 129 was CTH I until 1959).

[SEWIGuy]

STH 68 once connected Fox Lake with Port Washington. The present-day Fox Lake-to-Waupun alignment was part of STH 33 until 33 and 68 swapped routes in 1930 (STH 49 east of Waupun should be part of STH 68, and I'm not the only one who thinks so). I have no opinion on STH 118. As for STH 129 around Lancaster, instead of making it Bypass US 61, I would make it part of mainline US 61 (STH 129 was CTH I until 1959).

Why?  WI-49 runs along Main Street all the way through Waupun and is the through street at the intersection when WI-68 ends.

[The Ghostbuster]

STH 68 is an east-west route, while STH 49 is mostly a north-south route. STH 49 ended at US 151 (now Business 151) in Waupun until 1947 when it was extended eastward to US 41 (present-day STH 175), and later extended to the new US 41 alignment in 1954 (Now the US 41/Interstate 41 freeway at present-day Exit 87). I would have preferred that the STH 68 should have been extended east of Waupun since it was already an east-west route to begin with (although I am well aware how convoluted the state highway system is, and STH 49 is no exception).

[Molandfreak]

I'll defend WIS 118 since there isn't really another good alternative route to US 63 in that area. It was improved significantly when the fish creek bridge was closed a couple years ago.

[Big John]

Or WI 127 west of Portage being redundant of WI 16.

[thspfc]

I'll defend WIS 118 since there isn't really another good alternative route to US 63 in that area. It was improved significantly when the fish creek bridge was closed a couple years ago.

US-63 is traveled by about 2k vehicles/day in that area. If we want a state-designated alternate route for every highway with over 2k vehicles, we're going to have to just about double the number of state-designated highways. WI-118 should be decomissioned.

Or WI 127 west of Portage being redundant of WI 16.

100%. And WI-16 is essentially the alternate to I-90/94. The only thru traffic that uses it consistently is Portage to and from the portion of Wisconsin Dells that is east of the river.

Here are all the state highways I would decommission:

24 - no different from countless Milwaukee area major streets that are not state highways
79 - not enough traffic
86 - not enough traffic
101 - not enough traffic
102 - not enough traffic
105 - has some traffic, but not enough to justify its short length
108 - not enough traffic
111 - not enough traffic
112 - see 105
118 - not enough traffic
122 - not enough traffic
125 - typical city street, doesn't leave Appleton
126 - not enough traffic
127 - completely useless. Its AADT east of CTH-XX might justify state highway status if it was long enough, but west of there it drops way off
134 - spur to nowhere, not sure if it still exists?
137 - not enough traffic
139 - not enough traffic
146 - not enough traffic
152 - spur to nowhere
155 - spur to nowhere
158 - typical city street, doesn't leave Kenosha
165 - see 158
169 - not enough traffic
179 - not enough traffic
186 - not enough traffic
188 - not enough traffic
191 - not enough traffic
193 - ???
253 - not enough traffic
311 - corporate stunt

68 misses the chopping block for me because I think it should take over WI-49 between Waupun and Lomira. Similarily, WI-75 should absorb WI-83 south of WI-50.

[SEWIGuy]

STH 68 is an east-west route, while STH 49 is mostly a north-south route. STH 49 ended at US 151 (now Business 151) in Waupun until 1947 when it was extended eastward to US 41 (present-day STH 175), and later extended to the new US 41 alignment in 1954 (Now the US 41/Interstate 41 freeway at present-day Exit 87). I would have preferred that the STH 68 should have been extended east of Waupun since it was already an east-west route to begin with (although I am well aware how convoluted the state highway system is, and STH 49 is no exception).

They should just change the directional signage. WI-49 turns to run directly east before it enters the city of Waupun and remains so through Brownsville to I-41. Ending it at an interchange where it is by far the primary route makes zero sense to me.

[hobsini2]

Or WI 127 west of Portage being redundant of WI 16.

Absolutely. No reason for that to not be a county highway.

[The Ghostbuster]

STH 127 was part of US 16 (now STH 16) until 1948: http://wisconsinhighways.org/listings/WiscHwys120-129.html#STH-127. I imagine if 127 is ever decommissioned, it would have one county highway designation instead of two like when 16 was rerouted.

[hobsini2]

I'll defend WIS 118 since there isn't really another good alternative route to US 63 in that area. It was improved significantly when the fish creek bridge was closed a couple years ago.

US-63 is traveled by about 2k vehicles/day in that area. If we want a state-designated alternate route for every highway with over 2k vehicles, we're going to have to just about double the number of state-designated highways. WI-118 should be decomissioned.

Or WI 127 west of Portage being redundant of WI 16.

100%. And WI-16 is essentially the alternate to I-90/94. The only thru traffic that uses it consistently is Portage to and from the portion of Wisconsin Dells that is east of the river.

Here are all the state highways I would decommission:

24 - no different from countless Milwaukee area major streets that are not state highways
79 - not enough traffic
86 - not enough traffic
101 - not enough traffic
102 - not enough traffic
105 - has some traffic, but not enough to justify its short length
108 - not enough traffic
111 - not enough traffic
112 - see 105
118 - not enough traffic
122 - not enough traffic
125 - typical city street, doesn't leave Appleton
126 - not enough traffic
127 - completely useless. Its AADT east of CTH-XX might justify state highway status if it was long enough, but west of there it drops way off
134 - spur to nowhere, not sure if it still exists?
137 - not enough traffic
139 - not enough traffic
146 - not enough traffic
152 - spur to nowhere
155 - spur to nowhere
158 - typical city street, doesn't leave Kenosha
165 - see 158
169 - not enough traffic
179 - not enough traffic
186 - not enough traffic
188 - not enough traffic
191 - not enough traffic
193 - ???
253 - not enough traffic
311 - corporate stunt

68 misses the chopping block for me because I think it should take over WI-49 between Waupun and Lomira. Similarily, WI-75 should absorb WI-83 south of WI-50.

I'm not so worried about traffic counts. If a corridor makes sense, it's fine.
My thoughts:

Wis 24 should be extended to Janesville along ES and A. West of US 12, it is the more direct route to Janesville.
Wis 79 should be a county highway.
Wis 86 is fine to stay since it is one of the bridges over the Wisconsin River. Ending at Wis 13 makes sense.
Wis 101 can stay since it connects the orphaned part of US 2. I know 70 does as well but that's an e-w road.
Wis 102 should be a county highway.
Wis 105 I would extend east along the E-W section of Wis 13 to end at Ashland. I don't like the "wrap around" 13 does north of Ashland.
Wis 108 I could see the merit if it ended in Black River Falls. But it does not so it could go.
Wis 111 should be a county highway.
Wis 112 should be a county highway.
Wis 118 should be a county highway.
Wis 122 has merit because of the bridge into Michigan.
Wis 125 should be along all of College Ave and extended east to Holland and then south on Hwy D to US 10. And since College Ave is the direct access to Outagamie Co Airport (3rd busiest airport in the state), I would even extend it west to end at the airport.
Wis 126 should be a county highway.
Wis 127 should be a county highway.
Wis 134 should be a county highway if it is not extended north to Waterloo and possibly Columbus.
Wis 137 should be a county highway.
Wis 139 has merit because of the bridge to Michigan.
Wis 146 should be a county highway.
Wis 152 could be extended northeast to Wis 49 to make a Wautoma to Fremont corridor.
Wis 155 should be a county highway.
Wis 158 can stay because of it serving the Kenosha Airport and is the direct connection to Downtown.
Wis 165 could be extended west because of the Bristol Fair to US 45.
Wis 169 is fine.
Wis 179 could be extended east and west to connect Wis 35 and Wis 60 near Boscobel. I would be ok if this was just a county highway.
Wis 186 I would realign the south end from Vesper to follow Hwy HH and Hwy F into Wisconsin Rapids. The Vesper to Wis 73 segment could be Hwy D.
Wis 188 is fine.
Wis 191 should be a county highway.
Wis 193 should be a county highway.
Wis 253 should be a county highway.
Wis 311 should be a county highway. Damn corporation stunts.

[US 12 fan]

Highway 24 used to end at Highway 20 outside East Troy, close to I-43. I would recommend bringing that back because I do not understand why they truncated it.

[SEWIGuy]

Highway 24 used to end at Highway 20 outside East Troy, close to I-43. I would recommend bringing that back because I do not understand why they truncated it.

Easy. Around 1988-89, WIDOT replaced a route that paralleled I-43 (WI-24 is now CTH-L) with two that intersected the interstate (WI-164 used to be CTH-F.  WI-120 between East Troy and WI-36 used to be CTH-G)

It makes sense....you can actually see I-43 from WI-24's former routing.  No reason to have both.

[triplemultiplex]

I'll defend WI 111 because it's a sort of "watershed" route.  By that I mean it exists at a point where the north-south corridors in the state shift from generally pointing toward Chicago to generally pointing toward the Twin Cities.  111 is a path for vehicles to cut from one of those trends to the other in an efficient manner.  In that context, it's a worthy state highway.

The trio of seemingly useless state highways up around Ashland seem to be an artifact of a bygone era when that area was more of a big deal in the state in terms of like mines and stuff.  I have often thought that if a bypass of Ashland was ever constructed for US 2 (yeah I know, totally not needed) then one could decommission 112, 118 and 137.

In terms of adding state highways to the Madison area, top of my list would be extending WI 138 from Oregon west to Verona via CTH M.
There's also a good case to be made for CTH K & CTH M between US 12 and WI 113.  Especially if they ever get around to doing that whole "parkway" thing up there on that corridor.
I'd also like to move WI 35 onto CTH F in St. Croix & Pierce counties.  Thus paving the way for the expressway between Hudson and River Falls to get a gratuitous upgrade to I-194.   (Not serious about then, just poking the bear.)

[dvferyance]

Highway 24 used to end at Highway 20 outside East Troy, close to I-43. I would recommend bringing that back because I do not understand why they truncated it.

I would at least have it end at 164 in Big Bend. West of there traffic counts drop at least that would be a far more logical ending then it's current ending at the county line. But it's not alone in that regard. MI-152 and VA-108 also end at a county line. The later like WI-24 once did have a logical ending but got truncated.

[The Ghostbuster]

Back here in Madison, there recently was a PIM on the Madison Beltline Study's PEL study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx. Personally, I hope they go for the Add One Lane proposal: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/623addone.pdf. I would also like to see more ramp meters on the on-ramps, as well as additional grade separations so traffic doesn't always have to go through the interchanges to cross the Beltline.

[peterj920]

Back here in Madison, there recently was a PIM on the Madison Beltline Study's PEL study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx. Personally, I hope they go for the Add One Lane proposal: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/623addone.pdf. I would also like to see more ramp meters on the on-ramps, as well as additional grade separations so traffic doesn't always have to go through the interchanges to cross the Beltline.

How does that study not go up to County K? That intersection causes so many backups during rush hour which go past Parmenter St. There's way more traffic on US 12 towards Sauk City than there is east of I-39/90 to County N.

[The Ghostbuster]

That is a separate study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx. There is also this study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12skihi19/default.aspx.

[peterj920]

That is a separate study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx. There is also this study: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12skihi19/default.aspx.

No action since 2015 which means not happening.

[The Ghostbuster]

Also, today was the day of the new bus routes being implemented: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-best-we-could-ask-for-on-a-slow-rollout-metro-transit-launches-updated-routes/ar-AA1cq2aL?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=358359ce6b904ce0911fac2724bf1a18&ei=57.

[invincor]

I'd also like to move WI 35 onto CTH F in St. Croix & Pierce counties.  Thus paving the way for the expressway between Hudson and River Falls to get a gratuitous upgrade to I-194.   (Not serious about then, just poking the bear.)

I actually asked someone at WisDOT about this very thing about 20 years ago, soon after the expressway was completed.  He said the counties had enquired about this, but they had to turn them down because a) the mileage "salary cap"... there was no good corresponding turnback candidates where the counties would take over something from the state in return and b) CTH F has too many private driveways that have access to the road to meet their safety criteria.  Before the state could take it over, some of those would have to be closed off or consolidated until it was under some threshold concentration number.   I had suggested calling the expressway WI-594 afterwards, and he agreed that was a great number for it if it ever happens.