Wisconsin notes

[SEWIGuy]

I dug around on the WIDOT website and found the MOA between WIDOT, the County and the City for the West Waukesha Bypass. 

https://projects.511wi.gov/westwaukeshabypass/wp-content/uploads/sites/319/MOA.pdf

If you look at #5 under WIDOT responsibilities, the section of Meadowbrook between US-18 and I-94 was supposed to be transferred to the State.  Obviously this is the reason for WI-318.

#8 under County responsibilities, details the transfer of WI-74 to the County.  This was done a couple years ago.

#9 under County responsibilities calls into question the remaining portions of County D and TT.

#3 under City responsibilities details the transfer of US-18 to the City (the portion being bypassed).  WIDOT of course improved that portion last year.

[dvferyance]

I wonder why 318 and not 218.

[dvferyance]

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.

[GeekJedi]

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.

[GeekJedi]

I wonder why 318 and not 218.

I guess there's a little precedence there with 341. That road is just a short connector between I-94 and US-18, that simply exists to connect the eventual West Bypass to I-94 on both ends.

[GeekJedi]

This ought to be a mess. Something needed to be done there, and with the limited space, I guess it's probably the best alternative:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/southwest/news/hales-corners/2017/12/05/22-million-rebuild-highway-100-hales-corners-include-roundabout-new-signals/922782001/

[MNHighwayMan]

This ought to be a mess. Something needed to be done there, and with the limited space, I guess it's probably the best alternative:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/southwest/news/hales-corners/2017/12/05/22-million-rebuild-highway-100-hales-corners-include-roundabout-new-signals/922782001/

Don't let certain members of this forum know...

[SEWIGuy]

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.

It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way. 

[dvferyance]

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.

It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.

I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.

I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.

It's not a matter of having a lot of traffic.  Many roads have a lot of traffic.  The purpose is to aid with navigation and whose responsibility is it to maintain.  The state doesn't need to maintain a road that parallels an interstate highway...and yes I am looking at you Highway 175.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't remember Highway 318 being signed on Interstate 94 when I went to my aunt's house for Thanksgiving. Thanks for the update.

[dvferyance]

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.

It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.

I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.

It's not a matter of having a lot of traffic.  Many roads have a lot of traffic.  The purpose is to aid with navigation and whose responsibility is it to maintain.  The state doesn't need to maintain a road that parallels an interstate highway...and yes I am looking at you Highway 175.

According to that argument then WI-59 east of Waukesha should go it runs close to I-94. US-18 east of Madison should go as well as US-51 south of Portage. The fmr WI-24 really doesn't get that close to I-43 until you get out to WI-83. Otherwise it's a good 3-4 miles away. There are plenty of routes that come much closer than that to an interstate highway. I am just saying it would make sense to at least extend it out to 164 to give it a more logical ending. Just look at the amount of routes in Kentucky now there you will see real overkill.

[SSOWorld]

Don't be going fictional on us guys!

[SEWIGuy]

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.

It's probably because Milwaukee County wouldn't agree to take it over without an upgrade.  It really should just go away.  It is perfectly fine as a county highway in Waukesha County with the interstate paralleling it the entire way.

I disagree there is definitely enough traffic on it to justify it as a state highway east of 164. West of there ok I will give you that. If not restore the whole route I would at least end it at 164 at least there it would have a far more logical ending then ending it a the county line. Anyways back on topic to 318 I checked it out today so far the only signs for it or on I-94 or near it. Nothing posted anywhere else yet.

It's not a matter of having a lot of traffic.  Many roads have a lot of traffic.  The purpose is to aid with navigation and whose responsibility is it to maintain.  The state doesn't need to maintain a road that parallels an interstate highway...and yes I am looking at you Highway 175.

According to that argument then WI-59 east of Waukesha should go it runs close to I-94. US-18 east of Madison should go as well as US-51 south of Portage. The fmr WI-24 really doesn't get that close to I-43 until you get out to WI-83. Otherwise it's a good 3-4 miles away. There are plenty of routes that come much closer than that to an interstate highway. I am just saying it would make sense to at least extend it out to 164 to give it a more logical ending. Just look at the amount of routes in Kentucky now there you will see real overkill.

US-18 is completely different. It is a rural highway that connects rural communities. WI-59 east of Waukesha can go away though.

[dvferyance]

All I can say is your standards are really high. All that I mentioned still makes far more sense then having less then 2 miles of Meadowbrook Rd on the west side of Waukesha as a state highway. But I guess there are a lot of things that don't make sense.

[SEWIGuy]

Yeah I just think most urban/suburban numbered highways are simply not necessary. For instance, how does the routing of US-18 in Milwaukee or US-151 in Madison make any sense navigation-wise?  They are legacies of a pre-freeway era that are no longer relevant.

If state maintenance is the issue, you can keep the maintenance- just don't sign them.

[peterj920]

Yeah I just think most urban/suburban numbered highways are simply not necessary. For instance, how does the routing of US-18 in Milwaukee or US-151 in Madison make any sense navigation-wise?  They are legacies of a pre-freeway era that are no longer relevant.

If state maintenance is the issue, you can keep the maintenance- just don't sign them.

I do think US 151 should remain in Madison as a state highway because it does lead to the State Capitol.  US 151 is better off being moved onto the freeways for a more direct route but would like to at least have a state highway remain on the route. 

US 18 was rerouted in Milwaukee just west of Downtown onto Highland Ave instead of the one way pair of Wells St and State St.  Don't think many people noticed in the area and there isn't a US 18 exit sign on I-43. 

[SEWIGuy]

Not sure why the capitol is worthy of a state highway, but I would then replace US-151 with WI-551 or something similar and put the former on the freeways.

[GeekJedi]

Not sure why the capitol is worthy of a state highway, but I would then replace US-151 with WI-551 or something similar and put the former on the freeways.

I'm quickly veering into "fictional highway" territory, but I've often felt that if they wanted this would be a good reason to change the current law and allow an "STH-1", replacing US-151 from I-90 to the Capitol.

[SEWIGuy]

I like that idea even more.

[DaBigE]

Not sure why the capitol is worthy of a state highway, but I would then replace US-151 with WI-551 or something similar and put the former on the freeways.

I'm quickly veering into "fictional highway" territory, but I've often felt that if they wanted, this would be a good reason to change the current law, and allow an "STH-1", replacing US-151 from I-90 to the Capitol.

Not to delve too much deeper into the fictional highway realm, but how about including the stretch west from the Capitol to the beltline? WIS 1 could become the inner capitol loop, then have it run down W Washington to Park St, to the beltline. Rerouting US 151 along the interstates and the beltline could alleviate some of the pain the city experiences at the existing Blair St and Williamson St intersections.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[Revive 755]

WisDOT will be having a meeting on December 14 in Mout Pleasant to discuss I-94 improvements and improvements related to Foxconn:  https://projects.511wi.gov/i94northsouth/public-involvement-meeting/

[tchafe1978]

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.

I went to college in Platteville and I met plenty of fellow students from the Fox Valley area who just followed US 151 through Madison without thinking twice about taking the interstate and Beltline around instead. I explained to them how to go around and how much quicker and easier it is to go around instead of getting lost doing laps around the capitol. It would be easier for long distance navigation for sure. And there are already two to four route numbers on the interstate and Beltline around Madison, so what's one more?