Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[peterj920]

Took a trip up to Green Bay/Appleton and checked out the Wis 441 and Wis 172 projects. The concrete on Wis 441 received a diamond grind up to County OO. There’s extended off ramps but surprised an auxiliary lane wasn’t added between KK and CE. Between OO and I-41 that was left alone since the interchange with I-41 is going to be rebuilt.

Wis 172 was resurfaced and the interchange with GV is now smooth for the 1st time in years! It had the original concrete pavement that was extremely rough. The overhead signs were changed at Wis 57/Webster Ave. The two big sign bridges were removed. A large concrete support post was built aside from the bridge for a new overhead sign for Wis 57/Webster Ave overhead exit sign. Did they think the old sign bridge added weight to the bridge?

Last year the sign bridge where the ramps at Wis 57/Webster Exits was removed and overhead signs weren’t replaced until now. There’s a lot smaller structure and signs were Wis 57 traffic takes the loop ramp and Webster Ave continues straight.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think the STH 172 freeway should get exit numbers. The numbers (from west to east) would be 5AB, 6, 7, 10, and 11AB.

[peterj920]

I think the STH 172 freeway should get exit numbers. The numbers (from west to east) would be 5AB, 6, 7, 10, and 11AB.

Wis 441 just received exit numbers not too long ago. Although it’s somewhat confusing since US 10 exit numbers are used on the US 10 stretch. It would be better to use Wis 441 numbers only so the mile markers don’t go from Mile 290 to Mile 6. It’s surprising that Wis 172 doesn’t have any. Wis 30 has them too.

[Badger39]

Cambridge has its first set of stoplights.  They became operational this week at the US 12/18 and WI 134 intersection.

[GeekJedi]

Cambridge has its first set of stoplights.  They became operational this week at the US 12/18 and WI 134 intersection.

That would have been a good candidate for a roundabout.

[mgk920]

Cambridge has its first set of stoplights.  They became operational this week at the US 12/18 and WI 134 intersection.

That would have been a good candidate for a roundabout.

I wonder if Cambridge has long term plans for a US 12 bypass of the village.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

No bypass plans as far as I know. The US 12 Corridor Study (CTH-N to STH 26), which was completed in 2014, made some recommendations for the corridor: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12nto26/default.aspx. In the near future, though, the only planned project is to convert the US 12/18 intersection with CTH-W/Oak Park Rd. into a roundabout: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-intersection/default.aspx. Ultimately, I think the corridor should be expanded to four lanes, although I have no idea if that will ever happen.

[SEWIGuy]

At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

[mgk920]

At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

[GeekJedi]

At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

I imagine that even if they do, any expansion of US-12 will be a non-starter now that the improvements have been made on I-90.

[mgk920]

At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

I imagine that even if they do, any expansion of US-12 will be a non-starter now that the improvements have been made on I-90.

It is more local and regional traffic, not overhead through traffic, that has put the Illinois part of US 12 on the edge of breaking down.  OTOH, Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

I imagine that even if they do, any expansion of US-12 will be a non-starter now that the improvements have been made on I-90.

It is more local and regional traffic, not overhead through traffic, that has put the Illinois part of US 12 on the edge of breaking down.  OTOH, Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Pretty sure we will not see any sort of US-12 "corner cut" in our lifetimes.

[dvferyance]

At the very most, there will be an expansion to four lanes as needed heading east from where the four laning ends. But that will take decades. I doubt there will ever be bypasses of either Cambridge or Fort Atkinson. There just isn't enough through traffic on the corridor.

I also suppose that it depends on what Illinois does, but I won't be waiting up nights in eager anticipation of that. They will someday have to do something on their end, though . . .

Mike

All that I could see Illinois doing is building a Richmond bypass and upgrading the McHenry County portion to 4 lanes. I would like to see an interchange at IL-120 but that is doubtful.

[The Ghostbuster]

Is a Richmond Bypass ever going to be built? I would think the North Branch Conservation Area just south of the Illinois/Wisconsin border would be a barrier to such a bypass being built. Plus there are the matters of funding, and local opposition to such a project. The Richmond Bypass (more importantly the ill-fated Route 53/120 Project of decades past) is mentioned in this article: https://www.frrandp.com/2021/04/il53-120.html.

[GeekJedi]

Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.

[invincor]

Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.

Eh?   I don't understand what route you're describing here.  Do you mean I-43 as the "70 mph freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90"?    The same I-43 that's headed southwest rather than northwest at that point, taking you first back down to near the state line at Beloit before you get to the nice upgraded I-90? 

[JREwing78]

Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.

Eh?   I don't understand what route you're describing here.  Do you mean I-43 as the "70 mph freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90"?    The same I-43 that's headed southwest rather than northwest at that point, taking you first back down to near the state line at Beloit before you get to the nice upgraded I-90? 

Yes, exactly. On the surface, it makes no sense. However, despite being 15 miles farther to Madison than a straight-shot drive along US-12, it's the same or similar drive time (per the Google). Ditto for Elkhorn -> Janesville.

Walworth County, despite the existence of Lake Geneva, has never quite established enough of its own demand to get a 4-lane US-12 connection to Madison. Illinois never completing its US-12 freeway killed any ambition for it on the Wisconsin side of the border. Coming from downtown Chicago, there's no advantage to diverting from either I-90 or I-94 to get to Madison.

The Madison metro area may not have the explosive growth of, say, an Austin TX, but for the Midwest it's a rapidly growing area. It's on a similar growth track as Columbus, OH, a city that is infamous on AARoads for its lack of NW/SE highway connectivity. Highway planners in the 1950s and 60s were not banking on that; otherwise a US-12 freeway to Chicago might've gotten off the table.

Janesville on its own hasn't quite driven demand for its own E/W 4-lane connection, though a 4-lane US-14 connection to I-43 keeps bubbling under the surface. It was close to happening when GM still produced vehicles there, but the plant's closure in 2008 killed it. Putting that in place would be a decent consolation prize, but not holding my breath for that. 4-laning Hwy 26 doesn't help that cause; doing that solved the issue of Janesville not having a 4-lane connection to Milwaukee.

[peterj920]

US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn is the proposal that was most seriously considered. There was a study but was shelved. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s resurrected. Marshfield got US 10 to be upgraded arguing that it was the largest city without a 4 lane highway. That crown now goes to Whitewater and an upgraded US 12 would connect it with I-43. The mapped corridor is also there.

Northwest of Whitewater, there probably won’t be any improvements. Traffic heading to Madison takes County N/Wis 59 to I-39/I-90 between Whitewater and Madison. US 12 serves mostly local traffic in that area.

[SEWIGuy]

US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn is the proposal that was most seriously considered. There was a study but was shelved. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s resurrected. Marshfield got US 10 to be upgraded arguing that it was the largest city without a 4 lane highway. That crown now goes to Whitewater and an upgraded US 12 would connect it with I-43. The mapped corridor is also there.

Northwest of Whitewater, there probably won’t be any improvements. Traffic heading to Madison takes County N/Wis 59 to I-39/I-90 between Whitewater and Madison. US 12 serves mostly local traffic in that area.

Just because its the largest city without a four lane highway it doesn't mean that its worthy of a four lane highway. And US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is really only bogged down through the Lauderdale Lakes area - which makes we wonder if a corner cut will actually do much.,

[SSOWorld]

And yet US 10 to Marshfield sees little traffic.

[JREwing78]

And yet US 10 to Marshfield sees little traffic.

US 10 between I-39 and Marshfield exists for other reasons than purely traffic volume. It provides an additional Wisconsin River crossing where there are few other crossings available. It removed several railroad crossings. It removes through traffic from Stevens Point, as well as four towns in-between Marshfield and Stevens Point. Also, traffic was ultimately heavy enough that a 2-lane highway (and its attendant speed limit reduction) was going to be inadequate.

I think the Elkhorn-Whitewater "Corner Cut" would be worthwhile in 2-lane form to get through traffic out of the Lauderdale Lakes area. Beyond that, the existing connections to Madison via Hwy 59/County N, I-43 to US-14, or existing US-12 are adequate as-is.

I don't doubt that, "someday", traffic demand will rise to the point that a 4-lane US-12 east of Madison to Elkhorn gets built. But there's enough redundancy in the existing road network that "someday" will unlikely be during our lifetimes. It's also more likely that this 4-lane roadway could manifest itself as a Edgerton -> Whitewater -> Elkhorn connection first, rather than a 4-lane connecting through Fort Atkinson or Cambridge.

[SEWIGuy]

And yet US 10 to Marshfield sees little traffic.

US 10 between I-39 and Marshfield exists for other reasons than purely traffic volume. It provides an additional Wisconsin River crossing where there are few other crossings available. It removed several railroad crossings. It removes through traffic from Stevens Point, as well as four towns in-between Marshfield and Stevens Point. Also, traffic was ultimately heavy enough that a 2-lane highway (and its attendant speed limit reduction) was going to be inadequate.

I think the Elkhorn-Whitewater "Corner Cut" would be worthwhile in 2-lane form to get through traffic out of the Lauderdale Lakes area. Beyond that, the existing connections to Madison via Hwy 59/County N, I-43 to US-14, or existing US-12 are adequate as-is.

I don't doubt that, "someday", traffic demand will rise to the point that a 4-lane US-12 east of Madison to Elkhorn gets built. But there's enough redundancy in the existing road network that "someday" will unlikely be during our lifetimes. It's also more likely that this 4-lane roadway could manifest itself as a Edgerton -> Whitewater -> Elkhorn connection first, rather than a 4-lane connecting through Fort Atkinson or Cambridge.

I just can't see the corner cut as a big priority given the costs. US-12 is busy through Lauderdale Lakes, especially in the summer, but isn't awful during the rest of the year.

[The Ghostbuster]

I wonder if the DOT will eventually construct a roundabout at the US 12/STH 20/STH 67 intersection. It would be the ideal place for one.

[GeekJedi]

Wisconsin has a nice interstate compatible freeway on its side of the state line end there and there are other improvements that are certainly possible (ie, a clear path exists for the potential Wlkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' as a 'super two' on an upgradable four lane ROW).  However, that is all for the future and we'll have to long term stay tuned for that.

Mike

That nice interstate compatible 4-lane ends at a 70 MPH freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90. There is really no reason to corner cut or do anything else with US-12 at this point. There's no return on investment there.

Eh?   I don't understand what route you're describing here.  Do you mean I-43 as the "70 mph freeway that now free-flow connects to a very nice upgraded I-90"?    The same I-43 that's headed southwest rather than northwest at that point, taking you first back down to near the state line at Beloit before you get to the nice upgraded I-90? 

The same one that, while slightly longer in mileage, is faster than the current route. So you get the faster travel time with none of the expense or hassle of a redundant upgrade.

[mgk920]

I wonder if the DOT will eventually construct a roundabout at the US 12/STH 20/STH 67 intersection. It would be the ideal place for one.

Even if/when the 'corner cut' is built, I fully agree, a roundabout at that intersection is a 'no brainer'.

Mike