Wisconsin notes

[peterj920]

Looking at the WISDOT Corridors 2030 map, US 14 between Janesville and I-43 was upgraded as a backbone which are all supposed to be 4 lane expressways at least. US 45 was also added between US 10 and I-41 but is already a freeway.

WISDOT did a great job making sure all backbone routes were 4 lanes by 2020 and the originals all were by 2010. That won't be the case for 2030 as there's no plans to upgrade US 14 anytime soon. If there wasn't a commitment for construction why add it as a backbone?


https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/data-plan/plan-res/corr2030.pdf

[dvferyance]

Looking at the WISDOT Corridors 2030 map, US 14 between Janesville and I-43 was upgraded as a backbone which are all supposed to be 4 lane expressways at least. US 45 was also added between US 10 and I-41 but is already a freeway.

WISDOT did a great job making sure all backbone routes were 4 lanes by 2020 and the originals all were by 2010. That won't be the case for 2030 as there's no plans to upgrade US 14 anytime soon. If there wasn't a commitment for construction why add it as a backbone?


https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/data-plan/plan-res/corr2030.pdf

Could be a goof. I am surprised WI-23 between Sheboygan and Fond Du Lac was not included.

[SEWIGuy]

In 2019 the Evers administration removed the US-14/WI-11 expansion project, along with two others, at WIDOT's request. This was long after Corridors 2030 was approved. 

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2019/12/09/pushing-the-reset-button-on-state-highway-project-panel/

And that's absolutely the right call. The I-43 project north of Milwaukee, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, and I-39/90 north of Madison are way more important.

[GeekJedi]

In 2019 the Evers administration removed the US-14/WI-11 expansion project, along with two others, at WIDOT's request. This was long after Corridors 2030 was approved. 

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2019/12/09/pushing-the-reset-button-on-state-highway-project-panel/

And that's absolutely the right call. The I-43 project north of Milwaukee, I-41 between Appleton and Green Bay, and I-39/90 north of Madison are way more important.

Agreed. While I'd like to see 14/11 project done (it's brutal getting behind slow drivers on that stretch) I generally use 43 to 39/90 these days. The projects you mention are definitely more needed than 14/11.

[JREwing78]

I suspect WisDOT is trying to get its money's worth out of the I-39/90 widening, specifically the SBD I-39/90 to EBD I-43 movement. If they can use that as an excuse to forestall widening US-14/Hwy 11, even if it's only a couple decades, that's money ahead.

I have at least 3 other ways to get from Janesville to I-43 not involving US-14, so I'd rather not hop on I-39/90 and drive out of my way. I'd love to see WisDOT put in passing lanes to help break up traffic.

SM-G991U

[SEWIGuy]

To be honest, I think the DOT figured out long before the politicians did that a lot of these two-lane expansion projects weren't really worth the costs. Sure a 11/14 expansion would be nice...as would a US-12 Fort Atkinson bypass... But both of them are hardly as necessary as adding capacity to existing interstate corridors.

Take the Burlington bypass for instance. That whole project just seems to be overkill, and I don't know if it got pushed because Robin Vos is from there, but its hard to justify the cost IMO.

[US 12 fan]

It also might explain why they haven't expanded the US 12 freeway from Elkhorn to Whitewater.

[SEWIGuy]

It also might explain why they haven't expanded the US 12 freeway from Elkhorn to Whitewater.

I don't think that project has ever been more than mapped long ago. I know that the southeast regional planning commission starting bringing it back up again about a decade ago, but those conversations went nowhere.

I know the Fort Atkinson bypass had even a preferred alternative selected.

[GeekJedi]

To be honest, I think the DOT figured out long before the politicians did that a lot of these two-lane expansion projects weren't really worth the costs. Sure a 11/14 expansion would be nice...as would a US-12 Fort Atkinson bypass... But both of them are hardly as necessary as adding capacity to existing interstate corridors.

Take the Burlington bypass for instance. That whole project just seems to be overkill, and I don't know if it got pushed because Robin Vos is from there, but its hard to justify the cost IMO.

The bypass was desperately needed, but not that kind of design. A "super 2" would have sufficed.

[peterj920]

US 12 on a new alignment between Elkhorn and the Whitewater Bypass would be worth it since the traffic counts are high enough and there's a lot of bad intersections and driveways. A Fort Atkinson Bypass wouldn't be worth it at all. Traffic heading to Madison would take N/Wis 59/I-90 over US 12 after Whitewater. It would be logical to reroute Wis 59 on County N but Milton would probably object to that.

[SEWIGuy]

A new terrain US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater would definitely not be worth the cost. That would have been outrageously expensive for little benefit. The traffic on US-12 between Elkhorn and WI-67 is mostly local and is only really bad in the summer.

Between WI-67 and Whitewater, the traffic thins out and the current two lanes are fine. Perhaps a project to straighten the road out a little on its current path could be useful down the line.

[SEWIGuy]

To be honest, I think the DOT figured out long before the politicians did that a lot of these two-lane expansion projects weren't really worth the costs. Sure a 11/14 expansion would be nice...as would a US-12 Fort Atkinson bypass... But both of them are hardly as necessary as adding capacity to existing interstate corridors.

Take the Burlington bypass for instance. That whole project just seems to be overkill, and I don't know if it got pushed because Robin Vos is from there, but its hard to justify the cost IMO.

The bypass was desperately needed, but not that kind of design. A "super 2" would have sufficed.

Yeah that's what I meant by "overkill."

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe someday the bypass might be built, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I would have liked the Whitewater-to-Elkhorn realignment to have been constructed, even as a two-lane roadway with at-grade intersections. However, that is as likely to happen as upgrading the Whitewater Bypass into a four-lane freeway.

[SEWIGuy]

If it ever gets built, it will be decades from now.

[JREwing78]

US 12 on a new alignment between Elkhorn and the Whitewater Bypass would be worth it since the traffic counts are high enough and there's a lot of bad intersections and driveways. A Fort Atkinson Bypass wouldn't be worth it at all. Traffic heading to Madison would take N/Wis 59/I-90 over US 12 after Whitewater. It would be logical to reroute Wis 59 on County N but Milton would probably object to that.

A new terrain US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater would definitely not be worth the cost. That would have been outrageously expensive for little benefit. The traffic on US-12 between Elkhorn and WI-67 is mostly local and is only really bad in the summer.

Between WI-67 and Whitewater, the traffic thins out and the current two lanes are fine. Perhaps a project to straighten the road out a little on its current path could be useful down the line.

I would much rather see WisDOT invest in the new US-12 alignment between Elkhorn and Whitewater than end up converting Hwy 67 north of Elkhorn into a 4-lane divided roadway. There's going to be more ROW investment, obviously, but with the way the area is growing, the local traffic alone will prompt 4-laning of Hwy 67 sooner or later. Rerouting US-12 pushes that into the "later" column.

US-12 clearly doesn't need to be 4 lanes, but it should have the ROW reserved for future needs. It would be a decent place for a bike/ped path connecting the two communities. Give it an interchange at County A, and overpasses (or provisions for them) at County H, County O, Schmidt Rd, Foster Rd, and Territorial Rd.

As others have pointed out, don't hold your breath. As long as the legislature continues to be more concerned with protecting the party brand than solving the state's problems, nothing to resolve the highway funding problem will happen. We're still at 2009 funding levels thanks to the terrible decision to eliminate the fuel tax index, and that's impacting what kinds of projects get done.

[peterj920]

US 12 on a new alignment between Elkhorn and the Whitewater Bypass would be worth it since the traffic counts are high enough and there's a lot of bad intersections and driveways. A Fort Atkinson Bypass wouldn't be worth it at all. Traffic heading to Madison would take N/Wis 59/I-90 over US 12 after Whitewater. It would be logical to reroute Wis 59 on County N but Milton would probably object to that.

A new terrain US-12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater would definitely not be worth the cost. That would have been outrageously expensive for little benefit. The traffic on US-12 between Elkhorn and WI-67 is mostly local and is only really bad in the summer.

Between WI-67 and Whitewater, the traffic thins out and the current two lanes are fine. Perhaps a project to straighten the road out a little on its current path could be useful down the line.

I would much rather see WisDOT invest in the new US-12 alignment between Elkhorn and Whitewater than end up converting Hwy 67 north of Elkhorn into a 4-lane divided roadway. There's going to be more ROW investment, obviously, but with the way the area is growing, the local traffic alone will prompt 4-laning of Hwy 67 sooner or later. Rerouting US-12 pushes that into the "later" column.

US-12 clearly doesn't need to be 4 lanes, but it should have the ROW reserved for future needs. It would be a decent place for a bike/ped path connecting the two communities. Give it an interchange at County A, and overpasses (or provisions for them) at County H, County O, Schmidt Rd, Foster Rd, and Territorial Rd.

As others have pointed out, don't hold your breath. As long as the legislature continues to be more concerned with protecting the party brand than solving the state's problems, nothing to resolve the highway funding problem will happen. We're still at 2009 funding levels thanks to the terrible decision to eliminate the fuel tax index, and that's impacting what kinds of projects get done.

I don't want to get too political but Wisconsin is a swing state and that is a big reason why gas taxes and tolls aren't implemented. If one party raises the gas tax, the other will attack the other party. Notice how toll roads and gas tax increases primarily happen in states with one party rule.

Gas prices are one of the hottest topics and no politician wants to take blame for increasing prices.

[mgk920]

I agree, IMHO, the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' is a 'natural' long term project that will eventually separate the 'through' traffic between the cities from the more local access stuff on the existing roads, but when it is done ,build it as a 'Super Two' freeway on an upgradable four lane ROW.  It has an amazing amount of clear path along its way, too.  I also very much like the idea of rebuilding the US 12/WI 20/67 intersection as a roundabout, again to be able to handle the more localized traffic.

Mike

[peterj920]

Construction season is coming up. Any projects in 2024 that anyone is looking forward to?

[The Ghostbuster]

Check Wisconsin's 511 website: https://projects.511wi.gov/. That should tell you everything you need to know about upcoming projects around the state this year.

[mgk920]

Construction season is coming up. Any projects in 2024 that anyone is looking forward to?

Bar none, the I-41 'big shovel' six lane upgrades between Appleton and De Pere.



Mike

[US 12 fan]

Apparently there was an issue with the Mississippi River bridge that connects Highway 82 in Wisconsin with Highway 9 in Iowa. Now it is closed.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2024/02/27/bridge-over-mississippi-river-closed-to-iowa-wisconsin-commuters/72749462007/

[The Ghostbuster]

The bridge deck of the STH 82 bridge looks very weird to me, given it does not have any pavement: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3654832,-91.2140646,3a,75y,251.06h,79.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxx6RTFntR_2lZ1Il_x6KfA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxx6RTFntR_2lZ1Il_x6KfA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D258.81693%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. It probably has been that way since it first opened in 1931. I'm glad they're building a new bridge to replace the existing one: https://iowadot.gov/lansingbridge/Home.

[SEWIGuy]

I wasn't aware that they had decided to replace that bridge. Did the ongoing construction cause the existing bridge piers to move?

I have been across it once. It is an odd structure and really out of the way.

[mrose]

I've had to cross it when the Prairie Du Chien bridge was closed. I couldn't believe they were still letting cars on it.

I find it interesting that they are going to build a replacement in the identical shape and style, without the grate deck, as you very rarely see those giant steel trusses in new construction these days.

[JREwing78]

I wasn't aware that they had decided to replace that bridge. Did the ongoing construction cause the existing bridge piers to move?

That is the suspicion, given how close the replacement span is to the original. The JS article quoted the Iowa DOT that investigators looked at it, but didn't share the outcome. It would be odd if the pier movement wasn't related somehow.