Wisconsin notes

[MNHighwayMan]

Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.

I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

Ah, okay. Didn't know that. That makes more sense.

[peterj920]

Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.

I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

If you look at the I-41 interstate conversion website, I-41 was WISDOT's first choice.  I-47, I-594 and I-643 were the other 3 alternatives presented to AASHTO.  AASHTO approved I-41 which was WISDOT's preferred choice.

There were also local governments that wanted I-55 to be extended over but that went nowhere. 

The federal highway bill that designated US 41 as a future interstate did not include a number. 

See exhibit below on route numbers officially considered:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/ne/41interstate/map-routenumber.pdf

[I-39]

Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.

I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

Ah, okay. Didn't know that. That makes more sense.

However, WisDOT has hinted that WIS 29 could become an Interstate. In the this document (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/nw/i94redcedar/ea-2013.pdf) on page 6, speaking of WIS 29, it states

To the east of IH 94, USH 12/STH 29 is currently constructed as a 4-lane expressway. Future plans include
upgrading the facility to a freeway and possibly an Interstate. During coordination with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), WisDOT was advised to design any future interchange reconfiguration to meet freeway
interstate design standards for Interstate to Interstate connection.

Also, keep in mind I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit was a state highway before being the interstate designation was applied.

So I think there is a good chance WisDOT will apply for an Interstate designation for WIS 29 when the time comes, but as I said, it will be quite a while before WIS 29 is a full freeway between Elk Mound and Green Bay.

Nonetheless, IMO, along with reconstructing the existing Interstates, converting WIS 29 to a freeway should be a top priority for WisDOT going forward.

[skluth]

Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

WI 15 was converted to I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit. The remaining stub in Beloit was appended to WI 81. The eastern end along Beloit Road was removed from the system. The west end of WI 29 could become more of WI 40 or the east end renumbered as a WI 172 extension. Or one end could be given a new number; I'm sure a few numbers are available.

[SEWIGuy]

Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

WI 15 was converted to I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit. The remaining stub in Beloit was appended to WI 81. The eastern end along Beloit Road was removed from the system. The west end of WI 29 could become more of WI 40 or the east end renumbered as a WI 172 extension. Or one end could be given a new number; I'm sure a few numbers are available.

The eastern end of WI-29 could easily just become an extension of US-141.

[SEWIGuy]

Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice. 

But I can almost guarantee that it's enough that WisDOT won't bother to give 29 an "I" designation. They're known for their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.

That does not line up at all with the designation of I-41.

I-41 wasn't pushed by WIDOT.  It was included in a federal highway bill.

If you look at the I-41 interstate conversion website, I-41 was WISDOT's first choice.  I-47, I-594 and I-643 were the other 3 alternatives presented to AASHTO.  AASHTO approved I-41 which was WISDOT's preferred choice.

There were also local governments that wanted I-55 to be extended over but that went nowhere. 

The federal highway bill that designated US 41 as a future interstate did not include a number. 

See exhibit below on route numbers officially considered:

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/ne/41interstate/map-routenumber.pdf

Right, but IMO without that highway bill, I think the highway would have remained an interstate-compatible US-41.

[mgk920]

Having a couple free standing WI-29's on the opposite sides of the state really isn't "trouble."  99% of the public wouldn't even notice.

[WI 29]
Follow
[I-xx]



Mike

[GeekJedi]

WI 15 was converted to I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit.

That was because, at the time, the 65MPH speed limit only applied to Interstate highways. That was the sole reason for changing that stretch of highway.

[GeekJedi]

[WI 29]
Follow
[I-xx]



Mike

Or, just WI-29!

Seriously - the ONLY reason these state highways get "I" designations are that local politicians want an Interstate nearby. It was the reason behind I-39 and I-41. Unless something like that happens, WisDOT is generally averse to changing numbers for the sake of changing numbers. It's actually one of the more sensible things about them!

[sparker]

Seriously - the ONLY reason these state highways get "I" designations are that local politicians want an Interstate nearby. It was the reason behind I-39 and I-41. Unless something like that happens, WisDOT is generally averse to changing numbers for the sake of changing numbers. It's actually one of the more sensible things about them!

Except for (arguably) NC and TX, almost all DOT's display some resistance to establishment of new Interstates within their jurisdictions -- largely since (a) there's invariably some sort of substandard feature that needs to be corrected, throwing STIP-originated budged planning for a loop; (b) the cost of replacing signage and/or mileposts isn't insubstantial, particularly with cross-state trunk routes; and (c) if the DOT has an internal rule barring duplication, a grid-appropriate Interstate designation will likely conflict with a state route, requiring that route to be redesignated, often with political implications.  DOT's thus rarely instigate Interstate-upgrade activities; those almost always originate with either towns along the projected corridor or commercial interests in the affected areas, working with their chambers of commerce or other quasi-public entities.  Occasionally, as with the I-69 cluster in TX, a composite grouping of backers will emerge as various interest groups coalesce, with that group working hand-in-hand with any public entity that will comply to achieve their developmental ends (and they were fortunate to have a like-minded DOT management).  In the case of WI 29, it would take a few of the larger towns (or interests within) to pressure a state legislator or two to draft authorizing legislation to be forwarded to one or more WI congresspersons that would append a "future Interstate" designation to the authorizing language for the WI 29 portion of the High Priority Corridor #32 in-state cluster, possibly with a specific number attached (such as "98").  This was the methodology utilized to designate I-86 in NY (appended to HPC #36), I-11 in AZ and NV (appended to HPC's #26 & 68), and the southern I-87 in NC (appended to HPC #13).  In this way the coalition of local interests and Congresspeople can do an "end run" around a state agency, resulting in a federal (unfunded, of course) mandate to deploy an Interstate over a particular corridor.  The chances are if WI 29 ever becomes an Interstate, the process to do so will progress in this manner -- with or without WIDOT's input.

[SEWIGuy]

[WI 29]
Follow
[I-xx]



Mike

Or, just WI-29!

Seriously - the ONLY reason these state highways get "I" designations are that local politicians want an Interstate nearby. It was the reason behind I-39 and I-41. Unless something like that happens, WisDOT is generally averse to changing numbers for the sake of changing numbers. It's actually one of the more sensible things about them!

And since all the major cities along WI-29 are already serviced by an interstate highway, that makes the chances much less that politicians might push for such designation.

[I-39]

I have to say the above comments surprise me.

I find it extremely hard to believe communities/politicians and even WisDOT wouldn't push for an Interstate designation after WIS 29 becomes a full freeway between Elk Mound and Green Bay. We are talking almost 200 miles of what will be Interstate-grade highway.

If it were a US highway like US 10 or 151, then I'd say leave it alone, but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin. Trust me, the communities along the corridor will want the economic benefits of having an Interstate designation.   

[GeekJedi]

but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.

That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

[MNHighwayMan]

but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.

That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

Might be better as an I-x94 instead.

[The Ghostbuster]

Back to the story about opening the Madison Beltline's shoulders to alleviate congestion, I have a clear answer: NO! Shoulders on roadways should not be used as traffic lanes. They should only be used in emergency situations, such as a car breaking down, etc. Has opening the shoulders to traffic ever helped much in alleviating congestion anyway?

[I-39]

but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.

That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.

[I-39]

Back to the story about opening the Madison Beltline's shoulders to alleviate congestion, I have a clear answer: NO! Shoulders on roadways should not be used as traffic lanes. They should only be used in emergency situations, such as a car breaking down, etc. Has opening the shoulders to traffic ever helped much in alleviating congestion anyway?

Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

[dvferyance]

but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.

That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.

I doubt that will ever happen in any of our lifetimes. I think an interstate for US 151 would make more sense.

[SSOWorld]

but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.

That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.

I doubt that will ever happen in any of our lifetimes. I think an interstate for US 151 would make more sense.

No.

also no to 29.

41 was written in by the Feds and IDiOT not allowing 57 or 55 to be rerouted

43 was created thanks to IDiOT not allowing 57 to be rerouted.

[I-39]

but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.

That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

By that logic, why do I-41 and I-43 exist?

Mark my words, an Interstate designation will come when the WIS 29 corridor is fully freeway.

I doubt that will ever happen in any of our lifetimes. I think an interstate for US 151 would make more sense.

Maybe. Who knows how long it will take to convert WIS 29 to a full freeway.

Same with US 151, but that is a US Highway that has two separate expressway/freeway segments. Even if they were to convert both segments to a freeway, it wouldn't make sense to decommission a US highway in favor of an Interstate that doesn't even end at an Interstate on one end (Dubuque) and doesn't connect any major population centers. WIS 29 converting to an Interstate would be essentially connecting Green Bay to the Twin Cities.

[MNHighwayMan]

WIS 29 converting to an Interstate would be essentially connecting Green Bay to the Twin Cities.

Something that I'm certain Twin Cities residents would rather not happen.

[mgk920]

but it's a state highway with little recognition outside Wisconsin.

That's because it's very much an "intrastate" highway. People from outside Wisconsin have very little use for it. If anything, a state designation is completely appropriate!

Might be better as an I-x94 instead.

I've seen suggestions of it being designated as an eastward extension of US 212, too.

Mike

[DaBigE]

Back to the story about opening the Madison Beltline's shoulders to alleviate congestion, I have a clear answer: NO! Shoulders on roadways should not be used as traffic lanes. They should only be used in emergency situations, such as a car breaking down, etc. Has opening the shoulders to traffic ever helped much in alleviating congestion anyway?

I couldn't agree more. There'll be nowhere to push a broken down car or crash to, so the impact of any such event will be that much more magnified. Does the secretary even know if the pavement structure under the shoulders can support sustained live load? Nevermind the horrible exit spacing; (just what people need: one more lane to cut across at the last minute), or the garbage and debris that collects there. And at most, they think it'll gain them another 10 years. 

[DaBigE]

Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

In many areas, they can't. They're either landlocked by development (especially with the transmission line that was erected several years back) or an environmental corridor. What they need is a southern bypass to connect to 151 by Verona. That should remove a lot of the heavy truck traffic that clogs things up between the beltline interchange and Verona Rd.

[SEWIGuy]

Have they seriously considered widening the Beltline to four lanes in each direction?

In many areas, they can't. They're either landlocked by development (especially with the transmission line that was erected several years back) or an environmental corridor. What they need is a southern bypass to connect to 151 by Verona. That should remove a lot of the heavy truck traffic that clogs things up between the beltline interchange and Verona Rd.

That's going to be very difficult too.  Really at this point they are stuck with the corridor.  It is really only stop and go during rush and for a pretty limited window of time.