Wisconsin notes

[SEWIGuy]

Between Hudson and the Dells?

SM-G991U

No. I was just pointing out that that portion of I-94 is similar to the I-43 situation.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 43 also replaced STH 15 between Beloit and Milwaukee, as everyone knows. Of course, the Rock Freeway officially became 43 in late 1987, 11 years after the freeway was completed to Interstate 90 (now Interstate 39/90).

[JREwing78]

I would consider the US-141 situation relatively unique in Wisconsin.

US-141 historically terminated in Milwaukee, both as the original 2-lane alignment and the later freeway alignment. There was no reason to continue the designation south of Green Bay once the I-43 designation was made, since there were no segments of US-141 that extended past Milwaukee.

Could WisDOT have left US-141 on the lesser roadway and used a temporary state highway designation on the new freeway? Sure - and if they planned on maintaining the old roadway, that would've been the smart move. But there apparently were plans to route I-43 "up the middle" along Hwy 57 between I-(US-)41 and the US-141 corridor. I-43 would go directly to Green Bay instead of serving Sheboygan and Manitowoc. In that scenario, US-141 would've remained 2-lane north of Sheboygan, with freeway south to Port Washington.

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

Most of I-94 west of Milwaukee was built on roadway that didn't previously carry a US highway designation, and WisDOT wisely didn't make any moves to put US highways on the Interstate roadway. Though US-12 is mainly a secondary roadway west of the Dells, it's still an important state-maintained corridor, and is helpful in situations where traffic has to divert from the Interstate in emergencies. Hwy 15, being a state highway, also became a redundant designation when WisDOT got the I-43 designation on it.

US-51 maintains its duplex with I-39 (and brief triplex with I-39/90) because US-51 extends both north and south of the section of I-39, and has several sections that deviate from the Interstate corridor. This makes it a harder designation to remove (if folks were so inclined).

Could IDOT and WisDOT potentially truncate US-51 back to Bloomington, IL? Perhaps, but it's a lot of upheaval and change for no good reason. Also, since we're dealing with a US highway, the AASHTO rule about not downgrading a US highway to a lesser roadway comes into play. Otherwise both IDOT and WisDOT could've taken US-51 off the I-39 freeway and removed the redundant IL-251 designation.

[Molandfreak]

Could IDOT and WisDOT potentially truncate US-51 back to Bloomington, IL? Perhaps, but it's a lot of upheaval and change for no good reason. Also, since we're dealing with a US highway, the AASHTO rule about not downgrading a US highway to a lesser roadway comes into play. Otherwise both IDOT and WisDOT could've taken US-51 off the I-39 freeway and removed the redundant IL-251 designation.

But as I said before, AASHTO typically will go for removing a US Highway from a toll road. And even then, it's not automatically guaranteed they wouldn't go for removal from a non-tolled freeway since they've basically given North Carolina everything they've wanted in the past few years (including examples of moving US highways off freeways with interstate designations).

[SEWIGuy]

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.

[Rothman]

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.

Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 

[SEWIGuy]

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.

Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 

Sorry I wasn't clear.  It has to do with the designation of the Fox River and/or the Port of Green Bay, and that is why all of the bridges over the Fox in the Green Bay area carry a state designation.

I can't find the post and it could very well be 100% wrong.

[Big John]

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.

Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 

For some reason, the City of Green Bay is the maintainer of the Main Street bridge while WisDOT is the maintainer of all the other Fox River bridges in Green Bay.

[Rothman]

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.

Wait, what?

That is far too much of a generalization.  Although FHWA has made a lot of funding available to States for bridge maintenance (e.g., broadening NHPP for use on bridges not on the NHS) there is no mandate or strong recommendation that State DOTs maintain all bridges over waterways.

Shoot, NYSDOT is just going through its "Bridge NY" initiative solicitations right now to fund local maintenance of bridges. 

For some reason, the City of Green Bay is the maintainer of the Main Street bridge while WisDOT is the maintainer of all the other Fox River bridges in Green Bay.

In NY, the reason would be centuries old records of ownership/construction/legislation/agreements.

[JREwing78]

When those plans for an "up the middle" I-43 were shot down, WisDOT pivoted to using the US-141 freeway segments for I-43, with new terrain freeway north of Sheboygan to Manitowoc and Green BAy. At that point US-141 south of Green Bay became an (unnecessary) redundant designation. The silly thing is that US-141 is maintained as a state-maintained roadway through Green Bay instead of using a Business I-43 designation, so they maintain a 30 mile segment of unnecessary duplex between Green Bay and Abrams.

A "Business I-43"designation wouldn't have made any sense because one of its two endpoints would not have been I-43.  Someone mentioned here that the federal government wants state maintenance over bridge over waterways. So that means that the Main Street bridge downtown needs to be a state highway.  So WIDOT was left with two options.  Either create a new highway designation along Velp Ave, across the Main Street bridge and ending were WI-29 takes over Main Street. Or just keep US-141.

Nothing stopping a Business I-43 from happening - that's what Business Spur routes are for!

Not typical WisDOT SOP - they're non-belivers in designating Business route highways. I understand the reason to keep US-141 in Green Bay. It's just silly.

[The Ghostbuster]

There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

[Molandfreak]

There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

I could see the village of Elk Mound requesting Business US 12 when WisDOT takes over CTH-T. They would have a good case for it since the BGS's on I-94 and STH-29 would just need a "business" patch rather than a complete replacement.

[SEWIGuy]

And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."

[GeekJedi]

There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

Typically, the state will allow "Business Routes" if the municipality requests it, but once the signs are up the state is no longer responsible for the road. It is considered a locally-maintained road.

[Molandfreak]

And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."

According to Jman_WiS&S, current US 12 through Elk Mound is planned to become an extension of STH-40 when that project is completed, so it will still be in the state highway system.

[SEWIGuy]

And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."

According to Jman_WiS&S, current US 12 through Elk Mound is planned to become an extension of STH-40 when that project is completed, so it will still be in the state highway system.

That's different than creating a business route. What you are describing isn't unprecedented.

[JMAN_WiS&S]

There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.

[JMAN_WiS&S]

And WIDOT will probably say "sign what you want. We're not maintaining it."

According to Jman_WiS&S, current US 12 through Elk Mound is planned to become an extension of STH-40 when that project is completed, so it will still be in the state highway system.

The relocating of USH 12 and extension of STH40 is purely my own speculation based on conversations about what could and most likely would happen with various people in planning over the years. There is no official plan in place yet as far as I'm aware. I don't think there are full plans for CTH T yet.

[triplemultiplex]

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.

Wausau.

Stevens Point got turned over to local control a while ago.

[hobsini2]

There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.

I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.
But honestly, Lancaster should have BUS US 61 on the current US 61 and US 61 should go on Wis 129.

[mgk920]

There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.

I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.
But honestly, Lancaster should have BUS US 61 on the current US 61 and US 61 should go on Wis 129.

Is BR US 51 in the Stevens Point area still there?

Mike

[74/171FAN]

^It is still in Travel Mapping.  (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=wi.us051busste)

[SEWIGuy]

There have been Business Routes designated for State Highways and US Highways, but not for Interstates within the state of Wisconsin. I don't see any Interstate Business Routes being designated; the best we'll get is those Alternate Interstate designations along parallel corridors. I think Wisconsin is moving away from designating new Business Routes, as a number have been done away with over the last few decades, and more may be eliminated in the future.

We are no longer maintaining business route signage and are no longer creating new business routes. Officially I believe there is only one official business route in the state, and I know it's not in the NW region.

I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.
But honestly, Lancaster should have BUS US 61 on the current US 61 and US 61 should go on Wis 129.

Is BR US 51 in the Stevens Point area still there?

Mike

According to GSV, it still was signed as of this summer.

[triplemultiplex]

The Stevens Point business route is still plenty signed, it's just under local jurisdiction now.  Before, it was on the state highway system, like Bus 51 in Wausau.

I know one Business route is still in effect in Green Lake for Bus Wis 23.

Signage on that one is quite limited, though.  It lacks reassurance markers once you've turned onto it, and in town, it's only signed at the junctions where it makes a 90 degree turn.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Wisconsin State Highway Map inset for Stevens Point shows the Business 51 designation terminating at the Stevens Point City Limits on Post Road just past the Minnesota Ave. intersection. It has shown it like this for some time, even though Business 51 still exists as it always has between Exit 151 and Exit 161 on Interstate 39/US 51. This is likely because Business 51 was removed from the state highway system in 2009. The rest of the business route was supposed to also be removed from the state highway system in 2020, but I do not know whether that occurred.