Wisconsin notes

[SSOWorld]

They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.

Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.

[SEWIGuy]

Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?

With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.  The only thing I wonder is if they will try to slow down the traffic over the bridge which can routinely be 15 mph or higher than the speed limit. This can be especially problematic on the west side where you transition to a residential neighborhood rather quickly.

[Big John]

With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.

The bridge is in the Green Bay city limits, so it is Monroe Ave there.

[triplemultiplex]

They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.

Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.

I'm sure there was the occasional vehicle that used them as passing lanes.  Or like you're behind a truck that's going the same way as you from the ramp terminal and after each of you make the turn, you could zip around the truck in the other lane since your passenger vehicle has way better acceleration than a logging truck.

But aside from that, I'd say the extra lane wasn't really needed. They largely functioned as turn lanes to begin with so might as well just restripe with actual turn lanes.

Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?

With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.  The only thing I wonder is if they will try to slow down the traffic over the bridge which can routinely be 15 mph or higher than the speed limit. This can be especially problematic on the west side where you transition to a residential neighborhood rather quickly.

I strongly suspect the solution to that could be a roundabout at Mason & Ashland instead of retaining the interchange.
Probably not a popular outcome around here, but I would not be surprised if that's what comes out of this study.

[The Ghostbuster]

Wisconsin has demolished a few non-freeway interchanges in the recent past. In Brown Deer, the STH 57 interchange at STH 100 is being converted into a signaled at-grade intersection. The US 2/US 51 interchange in Hurley is now a roundabout (and Google Maps Street View needs to be updated to show the new roundabout, since the most recent Street View image is from October 2015). I wouldn't be surprised if other non-freeway interchanges are considered overkill and converted as well.

[chrismarion100]

Wisconsin has demolished a few non-freeway interchanges in the recent past. In Brown Deer, the STH 57 interchange at STH 100 is being converted into a signaled at-grade intersection. The US 2/US 51 interchange in Hurley is now a roundabout (and Google Maps Street View needs to be updated to show the new roundabout, since the most recent Street View image is from October 2015). I wouldn't be surprised if other non-freeway interchanges are considered overkill and converted as well.

Wisconsin replaced the trumpet interchange with STH 29 and STH 124 south of Chippewa Falls into a roundabout once the STH 29 Chippewa Falls was opened in 2005. They also replaced the diamond interchange with Bus US 53 and Birch Street in Eau Claire into a signalized intersection while they reconstructed Bus US 53 once the US 53 By-pass opened in 2006.

[mgk920]

^^ Broadway was a lot more busy when the bridge was built, thus the current configuration.  Agree that the auxiliary lane needs to be extended to the Ashland on-ramp as a minimum as the current merge area is very substandard.

That bridge was also designed to clear a no longer existing railroad on its east end and the current sidewalk is definitely an afterthought.  It is a relic of the late 1960s design and urban development theory mindset and I will be very interested in seeing how this replacement planning progresses, especially with the land elevation changes on its east approach.

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

A portion of CTH SS (Old US 53) in Barron County are being named for two police officers killed in the line of duty: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/portion-of-highway-ss-renamed-for-fallen-officers/ar-AA1fFWhE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=386dc9eef82b4f0783720fedd0bb3a1e&ei=273.

[SEWIGuy]

They've done that in a couple spots up north in recent years.  US 8 used to be four lane divided through its interchanges with US 51 and WI 13.  But when it was last repaved, they eliminated one of the thru lanes in favor of dedicated left and right turn lanes.  So now it's two lane divided.

Did they need the lanes?  With passing lanes in between points I digress.

I'm sure there was the occasional vehicle that used them as passing lanes.  Or like you're behind a truck that's going the same way as you from the ramp terminal and after each of you make the turn, you could zip around the truck in the other lane since your passenger vehicle has way better acceleration than a logging truck.

But aside from that, I'd say the extra lane wasn't really needed. They largely functioned as turn lanes to begin with so might as well just restripe with actual turn lanes.

Looks like the Wis 54/Mason Street Bridge is possibly going to be replaced in the next decade. On the NE Region project site there's a new page on a study on the bridge. No alternatives have been decided on yet. By the time the project begins the bridge will be 60 years old.

If there is reconstruction a new bridge should stay close to the current configuration with some changes. An auxiliary lane extended from Ashland Ave would be helpful since there's way more traffic from that entrance than Broadway. The Broadway half interchange probably isn't needed.

The other 2 Downtown bridges have issues with bridges opening for boats and long trains that backup traffic. Mason St is the only bridge that passes over the railway and is high enough to avoid opening for most boats, although it has to open for the occasional large ship. If the current short freeway works, why mess with it?

With the elevation change on the east side between Riverside and Webster, I don't how you can manage it without freeway like exit ramps.  The only thing I wonder is if they will try to slow down the traffic over the bridge which can routinely be 15 mph or higher than the speed limit. This can be especially problematic on the west side where you transition to a residential neighborhood rather quickly.

I strongly suspect the solution to that could be a roundabout at Mason & Ashland instead of retaining the interchange.
Probably not a popular outcome around here, but I would not be surprised if that's what comes out of this study.

I had assumed they wanted to keep a certain bridge clearance, which would make an at grade intersection more difficult given the elevation changes.

If that is not the case, then you are likely correct.

[peterj920]

Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.

If it's not broke don't fix it!

[SEWIGuy]

Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.

If it's not broke don't fix it!

If it's not broke, why would they be replacing it?   

But yeah, I think you are probably correct. While a bit of a stroad, Mason is really the only city street that can get you easily all the way from one side of Green Bay to the other.

[pianocello]

Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.

There are existing ramps that go directly from the bridge to both Ashland and Monroe, so I don't think at-grade intersections are outside the realm of possibility, unless there's different design criteria for ramps vs. arterials for some reason. At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians too.

As for roundabouts, the traffic counts are comparable to Mason St near I-41 or College Ave east of Hwy 441 in Appleton (Mason St bridge may be a little bit higher, but not a ton)

[SEWIGuy]

I think the current set up is way more pedestrian friendly on the east side of the river than an at grade intersection would be. The Fox River Trail runs underneath the bridge and people are walking, running and biking under it all the time.

[peterj920]

Wis 54/Mason St carries 34,000 VPD, more than the other two Downtown bridge crossings combined. Unlike the other examples cited which involved a new parallel freeway (US 53, Wis 29) or a reduction in traffic (US 2) the current configuration works best! The rail overpass and a higher clearance bridge is needed since the other 2 crossings back up a long ways for a bridge opening or a train. It would be difficult to build intersections to replace the interchanges without having an at grade railroad crossing or lower bridge clearance.

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians

I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

[pianocello]

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians

I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here.

[Big John]

^^ The west side approach even prohibits pedestrians from crossing the street at the closest intersections.

[peterj920]

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians

I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here.

The Downtown bridges are made more for pedestrians to cross and there's a reason to cross there. All the attractions are by the Walnut and Main St bridges. Even if a lower bridge is built I doubt many pedestrians would use it. No one mentions that Adams Street which is fairly busy passes directly under the current bridge and that would be another intersection in addition to Ashland, Broadway, and Monroe.

No one on here is acknowledging the higher clearance above the rail line and for boat traffic. That alone is a reason to keep a similar design. The other 2 bridges are stopping all the time for trains and boats in the summer since those bridges are so low.

[SEWIGuy]

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians

I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here.

The Downtown bridges are made more for pedestrians to cross and there's a reason to cross there. All the attractions are by the Walnut and Main St bridges. Even if a lower bridge is built I doubt many pedestrians would use it. No one mentions that Adams Street which is fairly busy passes directly under the current bridge and that would be another intersection in addition to Ashland, Broadway, and Monroe.

No one on here is acknowledging the higher clearance above the rail line and for boat traffic. That alone is a reason to keep a similar design. The other 2 bridges are stopping all the time for trains and boats in the summer since those bridges are so low.

And you can also walk under both the Walnut and Main St. bridges.

But what do you mean "no one here is acknowledging the higher clearance?" It was literally brought up by multiple people.

[peterj920]

At-grades would make things nicer for pedestrians

I think walking under a bridge is safer than crossing an at grade intersection with traffic.

Yeah, that's true. But it's easier to get from one street to another on foot if there isn't a grade separation (simply turning vs. navigating a 250+ foot ramp that may or may not be built). And adding at-grade intersections is likely to slow down traffic, which may not sound great for vehicular traffic but it will make it easier for pedestrians to cross upstream and downstream of the bridge. Especially here.

The Downtown bridges are made more for pedestrians to cross and there's a reason to cross there. All the attractions are by the Walnut and Main St bridges. Even if a lower bridge is built I doubt many pedestrians would use it. No one mentions that Adams Street which is fairly busy passes directly under the current bridge and that would be another intersection in addition to Ashland, Broadway, and Monroe.

No one on here is acknowledging the higher clearance above the rail line and for boat traffic. That alone is a reason to keep a similar design. The other 2 bridges are stopping all the time for trains and boats in the summer since those bridges are so low.

And you can also walk under both the Walnut and Main St. bridges.

But what do you mean "no one here is acknowledging the higher clearance?" It was literally brought up by multiple people.

What I meant is the negatives of having to wait for trains and boats if a lower bridge is constructed. There's no way that a bridge can be accommodate both intersections and a railroad overpass. The rail line is right next to Broadway. I'm for keeping a similar configuration since Mason St is the only one of the three downtown bridges that has a rail overpass and only has to open for big ships. The other two bridges have to open frequently for boats including a lot of recreational boats and traffic has to stop for trains on a fairly busy line. Those are the two biggest reasons why the bridge needs to stay in a similar configuration.

[Big John]

And you can also walk under both the Walnut and Main St. bridges.

But what do you mean "no one here is acknowledging the higher clearance?" It was literally brought up by multiple people.

To be picky, yes to the Main St bridge, but it is a tunnel adjacent to the Walnut St bridge.

[triplemultiplex]

There's enough room to for Mason St to come down to 'street level' at Ashland while retaining the existing clearance for the bridge over the Fox.
You'd be losing the Broadway ramps, probably, but they are overkill anyway.
Can probably do the same on the east bank and get back to street level at Monroe or even Madison

A more interesting thought is how to squeeze a new bridge next to the existing one, because I doubt they'd want to shut it down completely for more than a year while they tear it out and replace it on location.  So they're probably looking at having to acquire r/w for that.  Seems like fewer takings to build south of the exiting span, especially if they're looking to give up on some of those ramps between Ashland and Monroe.

Should be interesting to see what alternatives surface as this one is a tough logistical nut to crack.
Unless they're willing to bite the 'shut it down completely for 20 months' bullet.

[peterj920]

There's enough room to for Mason St to come down to 'street level' at Ashland while retaining the existing clearance for the bridge over the Fox.
You'd be losing the Broadway ramps, probably, but they are overkill anyway.
Can probably do the same on the east bank and get back to street level at Monroe or even Madison

A more interesting thought is how to squeeze a new bridge next to the existing one, because I doubt they'd want to shut it down completely for more than a year while they tear it out and replace it on location.  So they're probably looking at having to acquire r/w for that.  Seems like fewer takings to build south of the exiting span, especially if they're looking to give up on some of those ramps between Ashland and Monroe.

Should be interesting to see what alternatives surface as this one is a tough logistical nut to crack.
Unless they're willing to bite the 'shut it down completely for 20 months' bullet.

What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

Urban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse. College Ave is another example of that by reducing a lane in each direction. If there are any downgrades from the current configuration new intersections are just going to lead to more traffic congestion and accidents.

[mgk920]

There's enough room to for Mason St to come down to 'street level' at Ashland while retaining the existing clearance for the bridge over the Fox.
You'd be losing the Broadway ramps, probably, but they are overkill anyway.
Can probably do the same on the east bank and get back to street level at Monroe or even Madison

A more interesting thought is how to squeeze a new bridge next to the existing one, because I doubt they'd want to shut it down completely for more than a year while they tear it out and replace it on location.  So they're probably looking at having to acquire r/w for that.  Seems like fewer takings to build south of the exiting span, especially if they're looking to give up on some of those ramps between Ashland and Monroe.

Should be interesting to see what alternatives surface as this one is a tough logistical nut to crack.
Unless they're willing to bite the 'shut it down completely for 20 months' bullet.

What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

Urban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse. College Ave is another example of that by reducing a lane in each direction. If there are any downgrades from the current configuration new intersections are just going to lead to more traffic congestion and accidents.

College Ave in downtown Appleton was restriped as one lane each way with left turn lanes at the intersections due to a problem with street racing and the delays caused by cars stopped in the left lane while waiting to turn left at the intersections.  Snow removal activity showed that this was not going to be a traffic problem, as the S.O.P. of plowing the snow to the center of the street o be trucked away later after storms and the resulting temporary lane reductions never caused any traffic issues.  I'm taking a 'wait and see' attitude towards that, as I currently live only a few blocks from that part of College Ave.  Downtown Appleton is becoming a popular place for the younger crowd to live, as recent construction activity for mew rental apartments shows.

Mike

[triplemultiplex]

What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

The bridge would cross the RR and Broadway still. I only mentioned removing the ramps because they're redundant and take up valuable space.

Urban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse.

Worse for whom?
Poorly thought out urban planning made things a LOT worse for way more people back in ye good ol' days.
I'll take "oh noes, I have to drive a wee bit slower now" over "we're gonna tear down all y'alls houses so some rich fuckers can get to their office two minutes faster."

[Big John]

What about the rail line right next to Broadway? There's no possible way to build an overpass without going over the top of Broadway. There would be enough space to build an intersection with Ashland but why cause more traffic tie ups with an intersection.

The bridge would cross the RR and Broadway still. I only mentioned removing the ramps because they're redundant and take up valuable space.

Urban planning seemed to be better in the past than the present. Back then there was a focus on convenience and now planners make things worse.

Worse for whom?
Poorly thought out urban planning made things a LOT worse for way more people back in ye good ol' days.
I'll take "oh noes, I have to drive a wee bit slower now" over "we're gonna tear down all y'alls houses so some rich fuckers can get to their office two minutes faster."

A ton of buildings were torn down to build this bridge, more torn down to save the only 2 buildings on the site - Howe School and The White Store, whose building is now the county health department.