Wisconsin notes

[triplemultiplex]

A couple observations from a northbound trip yesterday:

SB I-39 traffic is using the new bridge at WI 23/82.  The temporary bridge in the median is already removed and crews were working on tearing out the temporary roadway.

2/10ths mile markers have been added to US 51 north of Wausau to the county line.

The temporary lane and bridge in the median of US 51 at CTH WW in Brokaw is ready to take NB traffic so the existing bridge can be replaced.  I think that's happening in spring.

[Alps]

In Baraboo, WIS 159 will become an extension of WIS 136 once the US 12 bypass is completed in 2017.

Really?  That's stupid.  They should make it part of that CTH BD which is replacing and has replaced the old alignment of US 12.

If they extend it out to Hwy 113 SE of Baraboo, it's not totally worthless. If it dead-ends at Devil's Lake State Park as currently configured, I agree with your assessment that it's stupid.

In most states, access to a state park is sufficient justification for a state highway. Why not here?

[SEWIGuy]

Because there are multiple state parks in Wisconsin that don't have access via a state maintained highway.

[triplemultiplex]

More than that, Devil's Lake is the only state park in Wisconsin with a state highway that exists only to serve the park.  Pretty big outlier.

[The Ghostbuster]

What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?

[hobsini2]

What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?

Good question. Here are the ones that I would suggest with the number I would assign.
American Falls (Wis 502)
Big Bay (Wis 513)
Buckhorn (Wis 580)
Burnet Island (Wis 527)
Crystal Muskie (Extension of Wis 155)
Flambeau River St Forest (Wis 570)
Grandad Bluff (Wis 516)
Harrington Beach (Wis 532)
Kohler Andrea (Wis 528)
Pattison (Wis 535)
Rib Mountain (Wis 529)
Rock Island (Wis 542)
Willow River (Wis 565)
Wyalusing (Wis 518)
Yellowstone Lake (Wis 581)

All the other ones have a state highway very close by.

[invincor]

Kinnickinnic State Park in Pierce County is at present only "served" by CTH F.  Way back in time, in the very early days of the highway system, this was the route of Highway 29, but it was moved to its present alignment further east not that long after. 

In more recent times, Pierce and St. Croix counties have asked if CTH F could be upgraded to a state highway, as traffic counts warrant it, but the state has turned that down on the grounds of a) the cap limit of how many miles of state highway they can have, and b) there is too much private driveway access along F, especially in St. Croix County, and some of those would have to be closed off before they could accept it as a state highway.  Were it to ever happen, the logical thing to do would be to reroute Highway 35 onto it, so that it no longer goes to River Falls at all but just continues due north, hugging the St. Croix River and the state line like it normally does.  The expressway section of 35 from I-94 to River Falls would need a new number then.  Something like WI-594 maybe?

[SEWIGuy]

What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?

Good question. Here are the ones that I would suggest with the number I would assign.
American Falls (Wis 502)
Big Bay (Wis 513)
Buckhorn (Wis 580)
Burnet Island (Wis 527)
Crystal Muskie (Extension of Wis 155)
Flambeau River St Forest (Wis 570)
Grandad Bluff (Wis 516)
Harrington Beach (Wis 532)
Kohler Andrea (Wis 528)
Pattison (Wis 535)
Rib Mountain (Wis 529)
Rock Island (Wis 542)
Willow River (Wis 565)
Wyalusing (Wis 518)
Yellowstone Lake (Wis 581)

All the other ones have a state highway very close by.

Why is this necessary?

[Mrt90]

This week, I noticed signs on I-94/I-41 in Kenosha County for a Frank Lloyd Wright Trail. Apparently, it runs between Kenosha County and Richland County, I'm pretty sure I saw an exit sign southbound at Hwy 165 in Kenosha County which I assume will direct people to the visitors center (or maybe Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Culver's restaurants or outlet mall ) but I couldn't find any specific information about the route, except for the link which shows the places to visit.  Does anyone know anything more about this?  I guess signing it to start at the state line going north to Racine makes sense, but I can't figure out why someone starting in the western part of the state, then going east, and finishing in Racine would then want to go south on I-94/I-41 to Kenosha County?

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/article/tours/wisconsins-frank-lloyd-wright-trail

[SEWIGuy]

This week, I noticed signs on I-94/I-41 in Kenosha County for a Frank Lloyd Wright Trail. Apparently, it runs between Kenosha County and Richland County, I'm pretty sure I saw an exit sign southbound at Hwy 165 in Kenosha County which I assume will direct people to the visitors center (or maybe Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Culver's restaurants or outlet mall ) but I couldn't find any specific information about the route, except for the link which shows the places to visit.  Does anyone know anything more about this?  I guess signing it to start at the state line going north to Racine makes sense, but I can't figure out why someone starting in the western part of the state, then going east, and finishing in Racine would then want to go south on I-94/I-41 to Kenosha County?

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/article/tours/wisconsins-frank-lloyd-wright-trail

It was established this past spring.  The law didn't designate a specific routing, but directs WIDOT to do so and then sign it.

[triplemultiplex]

American Falls (Wis 502)

I think you got autocorrected there.  Amnicon Falls.

[20160805]

In other news, Midway Road (County AP) in Menasha and Appleton, WI between US 10 (Oneida St) and Telulah Ave (about 1 mile) recently had two new marked crosswalks installed, and the speed limit was lowered to 30 from 35.  Personally I think 35 was the ideal speed limit for that section, being that people generally went between 33-36 before the change, so I guess the cops just wanted to make an extra buck or two.

I'm aware that there was recently some construction over there, but can't they bump the speed limit back up when the construction is finished?

[SEWIGuy]

Excellent article on the plight of state highway funding in Wisconsin.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/27/easy-answers-wisconsin-road-funding-problem/94513984/

Dropping the automatic increase in the gas tax was a terrible decision.  The refusal to consider a moderate increase to catch up is simply putting the state further behind.

[GeekJedi]

Dropping the automatic increase in the gas tax was a terrible decision.  The refusal to consider a moderate increase to catch up is simply putting the state further behind.

I think at the time (when gas was at an all time high) it wasn't a horrible idea. However, it should have been a temporary measure that should have been set to automatically re-start after a certain amount of time. Of course now everyone realizes that we need more money, but nobody wants to actually raise taxes. It also doesn't help that people throw out "roundabouts and landscaping" as the problem. That's kind of like someone complaining about a running faucet as the Titanic sinks.

[hobsini2]

What other Wisconsin state parks should have a state highway serving it?

Good question. Here are the ones that I would suggest with the number I would assign.
American Falls (Wis 502)
Big Bay (Wis 513)
Buckhorn (Wis 580)
Burnet Island (Wis 527)
Crystal Muskie (Extension of Wis 155)
Flambeau River St Forest (Wis 570)
Grandad Bluff (Wis 516)
Harrington Beach (Wis 532)
Kohler Andrea (Wis 528)
Pattison (Wis 535)
Rib Mountain (Wis 529)
Rock Island (Wis 542)
Willow River (Wis 565)
Wyalusing (Wis 518)
Yellowstone Lake (Wis 581)

All the other ones have a state highway very close by.

Why is this necessary?

Better quality of road going in to a state park since county codes vary so much. Tourism. I just am of the belief that if it is a state park, the roads into or near it should be maintained by the state as well. It cuts out red tape going through the county.

[hobsini2]

American Falls (Wis 502)

I think you got autocorrected there.  Amnicon Falls.

Correct.

[dvferyance]

What's the deal with the exit being numbered 293C? Is it to account for a parclo/cloverleaf upgrade to the interchange to the west?

Historically (prior to ~2000 when this interchange was reconstructed) there were 293A and B ramps, yes, a parclo.

Even crazier was that it was "A-B" prior to that, when then US-16 had a ramp to WB 94, and the loop ramp was the exit for CTH-T North and South, though even earlier than that, Grandview ended at 94.

It was actually reconstructed around 1996 and I do agree that it should have been changed. US-16 should be Exit 293B and Hwy T should be Exit 293A.

[dvferyance]

In Baraboo, WIS 159 will become an extension of WIS 136 once the US 12 bypass is completed in 2017.

Really?  That's stupid.  They should make it part of that CTH BD which is replacing and has replaced the old alignment of US 12.

I would have kept WI-123 and decommissioned WI-159 instead of the other way around.

[The Ghostbuster]

Google Maps still doesn't show construction imprints of the US 12 West Baraboo Bypass. Is this why everybody hates Google Maps?

[DaBigE]

Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html

[peterj920]

Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html

Wow that's a pretty extensive project.  I wasn't aware that they're looking at constructing a new parallel freeway north of Madison.  I think East Reliever A is the best option but could possibly use East Reliever C.  I don't see the point of the B and D options.  Based on those alternatives I wasn't aware that there is that much traffic on I-94 that only passes through Madison, since through traffic from Chicago is more likely to use I-90.  I have the presentation link below.   


http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/presentation201611.pdf

[DaBigE]

Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html

Wow that's a pretty extensive project.  I wasn't aware that they're looking at constructing a new parallel freeway north of Madison.  I think East Reliever A is the best option but could possibly use East Reliever C.  I don't see the point of the B and D options.  Based on those alternatives I wasn't aware that there is that much traffic on I-94 that only passes through Madison, since through traffic from Chicago is more likely to use I-90.  I have the presentation link below.   


http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/presentation201611.pdf

It caught me by surprise as well. When the surveys went out ~ a year ago, I was expecting more safety/access improvements along the corridor, not necessarily this extensive of capacity expansion. I was envisioning things like replacing the cloverleaf of the I at US 151 along with other spot interchange improvements.

[mvak36]

Not totally surprised by this news about the I-39/90/94 study: http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Windsor-board-members-vote-against-majority-of-I-399094-project-404176326.html

Wow that's a pretty extensive project.  I wasn't aware that they're looking at constructing a new parallel freeway north of Madison.  I think East Reliever A is the best option but could possibly use East Reliever C.  I don't see the point of the B and D options.  Based on those alternatives I wasn't aware that there is that much traffic on I-94 that only passes through Madison, since through traffic from Chicago is more likely to use I-90.  I have the presentation link below.   


http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/399094/presentation201611.pdf

I was thinking they would have to expand the 39/90/94 section anyways. I agree with you on the reliever route options.

[peterj920]

I would rather see a North Beltline built than the reliever route.  I think that should be more of a priority but that study scraps it.  I know it doesn't take traffic off of I-39/90/94, but it should take some traffic off of the current Beltline. 

[triplemultiplex]

Count me among those who didn't know WisDOT was mulling some of these wasteful, absurd options.  What the hell are they thinking?

WisDOT must be up to their fraudulent traffic forecasting again.