Wisconsin notes

[mgk920]

Wisconsin has never had a STH-1 through STH-9, and it likely never will. I don't see the route of existing US 151 through Madison to ever change. I think it is fine the way it is.

When it is freeway / expressway on either side of Madison, the routing through the city on regular streets is confusing.  It should change.

Agreed.

US 151 through Madison is what US 41 through Milwaukee was before I-41.  And yes, a noticeable percentage of the traffic that enters the metro area on US 151 from either direction transits and leaves it via US 151.  Big Rig Steve has done it numerous times.

Mike

[JREwing78]

In other news, US-14 north of Evansville made the local news:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/neighbors-want-more-to-be-done-about-dangerous-driving-on-highway-14/670085629

From discussions I've had with WisDOT in the past, they are trying NOT to have to 4-lane US-14. But that whole stretch from Oregon through Evansville to Janesville sees plenty of traffic to justify 4-laning. On the unofficial Evansville bypass (Territorial Rd), they've posted 35 mph speed limits and resorted to placing stop signs at random intersections to discourage its use.

But, thanks to the crack fiscal management of the past few administrations (Doyle's included), there's no money to 4-lane US-14.

[I-39]

In other news, US-14 north of Evansville made the local news:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/neighbors-want-more-to-be-done-about-dangerous-driving-on-highway-14/670085629

From discussions I've had with WisDOT in the past, they are trying NOT to have to 4-lane US-14. But that whole stretch from Oregon through Evansville to Janesville sees plenty of traffic to justify 4-laning. On the unofficial Evansville bypass (Territorial Rd), they've posted 35 mph speed limits and resorted to placing stop signs at random intersections to discourage its use.

But, thanks to the crack fiscal management of the past few administrations (Doyle's included), there's no money to 4-lane US-14.

There's no money because....

A. They got rid of the indexing the gas tax to inflation

B. They wasted a ton of money on overbuilding highways that were not needed

US 14 probably could use 4 lanes in that segment, but it does not need to be built to freeway or high-quality expressway standards.

[FightingIrish]

A friend told me a new WIS 318 has been established in Waukesha running along Meadowbrook Road connecting I-94 and US 18. Is that related to the future bypass?

Is it signed? I know that stretch is being widened as part of the Waukesha West bypass, however there wasn't a route planned there originally. It wouldn't surprise me that it would become an unsigned route.

I was told it was signed (Chris Lokken was the source)

Wow! He's a reliable source, so I'd believe it. Totally out of left field though!

There was a photo of a WI 318 sign posted on my FB news feed scroll yesterday.

Mike

WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

[GeekJedi]

WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.

[FightingIrish]

Is WisDOT planning to take on a more 'Ohioish' tack regarding minor highways, taking over higher status county highways and giving them higher three digit state numbers on a statewide basis?  Likely not, but it is an interesting thought.



I have idly mused about this over the years - 'What would I number these county highways as?' (ie. County 'E', County 'N', County 'S', County 'JJ', County 'A', etc, in Outagamie County.)



Mike

I wish there have been several highways they got rid of I would have kept hands down. WI-74 is the most recent but there is also WI-163 and WI-149 that left a huge hole with no state highways. WI-163 was the biggest shocker to me. I would also upgrade Green county M from the state line to Browntown to a state highway to give IL-73 a connection. I would also restore WI-24 to it's original length. That is about the only upgrades I would make everything else I would keep as is.

I agree with you on WI-24. I get why they did it - it's really just a local connector that pretty much drops to an almost empty rural road south of WI-164, but to end it at the county line just doesn't make sense to me.

Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

[FightingIrish]

WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.

But Wisconsin famously decommissioned the stretch of Layton Blvd between Forest Home Ave and National Avenue, after improvements were done, which led to the introduction of WIS 241/341 (since US 41 had to be removed).

Still never figured out how that part of Layton/27th didn't meet state highway standards, as I've seen far worse quality state highways in Wisconsin (like WIS 32). Also never figured out who this Layton guy was that merited naming two major streets in the area after him. I just call it South 27th.

[GeekJedi]

Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.

[SEWIGuy]

WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.

But Wisconsin famously decommissioned the stretch of Layton Blvd between Forest Home Ave and National Avenue, after improvements were done, which led to the introduction of WIS 241/341 (since US 41 had to be removed).

Still never figured out how that part of Layton/27th didn't meet state highway standards, as I've seen far worse quality state highways in Wisconsin (like WIS 32). Also never figured out who this Layton guy was that merited naming two major streets in the area after him. I just call it South 27th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Layton

And I thought it was the people around the area who wanted the designation gone.

[FightingIrish]

Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.

I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.

[FightingIrish]

WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.

But Wisconsin famously decommissioned the stretch of Layton Blvd between Forest Home Ave and National Avenue, after improvements were done, which led to the introduction of WIS 241/341 (since US 41 had to be removed).

Still never figured out how that part of Layton/27th didn't meet state highway standards, as I've seen far worse quality state highways in Wisconsin (like WIS 32). Also never figured out who this Layton guy was that merited naming two major streets in the area after him. I just call it South 27th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Layton

And I thought it was the people around the area who wanted the designation gone.

Apparently, the city wanted to reconstruct the road, but didn't want to cut down a bunch of trees. Residents weren't too keen on that. The city was warned that, as a result, the reconstructed segment would not conform to state highway standards, so US 41 was moved to I-94 and WIS 241 was born, which terminated at the intersection with WIS 24 (a bizarre double termination of routes). And that segment of S. Layton Blvd. became a local street. Still never figured out why it would not have met state standards. After all, why would the ragged segments of WIS 32 and 38 to the east conform better than a divided highway? Or even the N. 20th St. portion of WIS 57, which is essentially a glorified, and very narrow, two-lane residential street?

[FightingIrish]

WIS 318 is a byproduct of recent Waukesha County route swaps. WIS 74 (which had sadly outgrown its usefulness years ago and which the communities  it ran through wanted it decommissioned) and US 18 through Waukesha were turned back to local or county control. In return, they assumed the future routing of the Waukesha western bypass, including Meadowbrook. The segment between US 18 and I-94 is now under state control, so they needed to tag it with a number.

I think the surprise is that they numbered and signed it. I know I had expected something like Layton Ave. or Miller Park Way where the state maintained it, but they didn't bother to sign it.

WIS 341 was not completely unsigned. There were a few shields (I saw one on the eastbound stadium approach to the Canal St. interchange, as well as on northbound Miller Park Way just before Greenfield Av.) But the freeway segment was never signed. Even today, its replacement, WIS 175, doesn't have much signing until north of I-94.

[triplemultiplex]

WI 318 has to be the shortest time from a new state highway's creation to me clinching it. 

re: US 14 to Evansville
At least WisDOT already has the r/w they need in Dane County to eventually do something about that bugger.
Well almost. I see part of the r/w north of WI 92 is now a lake, so it would have to shift west and take some different property.

As Madison continues to grow, it's going to get increasingly beneficial to expand that US 14 corridor from Janesville to Oregon.

[SEWIGuy]

Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.

I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.

The MOU with the City, County and WIDOT gives you an insight into this process.  Basically WIDOT is going to hold these routes until they need the mileage.  Then they will work out some deal with all parties involved.  Probably don't even need to be in the same county if a state highway is turned over to the City of Milwaukee. 

[paulthemapguy]

While we're talking on-and-off about 318...

I've been trying to snap a photo of every state highway in Wisconsin, so I need a comprehensive list of every highway in the state.  Imagine my surprise when I encounter one that wasn't on my list!  Good thing I did, or my collection would be incomplete without me even knowing!

Here's what the signage looks like from I-94 to WI-318.  I wonder if a wiki page about the highway will go up anytime soon.


WI-I-94X291E by Paul Drives, on Flickr

[SEWIGuy]

Nice!  I plan on cllinching Thursday when I'm in the area.

[GeekJedi]

Drove it today. It is signed along the route now.

[dvferyance]

Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.

I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.

I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.

[SEWIGuy]

Wisconsin is highly limited as far as the roads it can add to the state route system. Therefore, when they add mileage, they take another route and turn equivalent mileage back to the county. This happened in Waukesha County in the past couple years, and famously occurred in the 90s when WIS 794 opened, and the nearby WIS 62 was sacrificed to make room.

I understand how the legislative rule reads. They have a statutory maximum and must remove mileage in order to add it. My discussion was more theoretical than anything.

I wonder how many Wisconsin state routes are mere placeholders, waiting for the opportunity to be turned back to local control once another route becomes a state highway in it's place. Perhaps they'd take advantage of my idea to take over Good Hope Rd. as an alternate north side bypass from I-41 to I-43 (I called it WIS 109), and turn over WIS 24 to county control in its place. I get the feeling WIS 24 is just a placeholder anyway. Aside from being a good southern diagonal route, it doesn't really do much else, and it just turns into a county route once it crosses the border.

WIS 57 south of Capitol Drive could also fit the description of a throwaway state route.  Seems like kind of an afterthought.

I don't think Good Hope Rd should be a state highway. You already have Brown Deer Rd a mile to the north and Mequon Rd just north of there as state highways. Mequon Rd is a much better northern bypass than Good Hope Rd. As I said before with WI-24 just extend it out to Big Bend so it has a logical western end.

You make a good point when you said that Good Hope should not be a state highway because alternative highways exist.  Which is exactly the reason WI-24 should not be extended.

[SEWIGuy]

I clinched WI-318 in both directions yesterday.  Only observation is that the END sign on the north is after the I-94 interchange.  Otherwise it is a nice, four lane boulevard the entire way.

[MNHighwayMan]

I clinched WI-318 in both directions yesterday.  Only observation is that the END sign on the north is after the I-94 interchange.  Otherwise it is a nice, four lane boulevard the entire way.

Isn't that where it should be? Or does Wisconsin not typically put it there?

[SEWIGuy]

I clinched WI-318 in both directions yesterday.  Only observation is that the END sign on the north is after the I-94 interchange.  Otherwise it is a nice, four lane boulevard the entire way.

Isn't that where it should be? Or does Wisconsin not typically put it there?

They usually post them at the junction sign before the intersection.




Occasionally right at the intersection

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I can think of two examples offhand (13 and 105) that have two end shields for some reason, one advance END sign and one at the physical endpoint.

[MNHighwayMan]

I can think of two examples offhand (13 and 105) that have two end shields for some reason, one advance END sign and one at the physical endpoint.

Ooh, I actually have seen the second one! (Pictures are from August this year.)



I thought it was odd too.

[20160805]

On a related note, the end sign on WI 125 westbound is 0.24 miles before the actual endpoint. 
http://www.mappedometer.com/?maproute=662120