Wisconsin notes

[hobsini2]

I think it really just needs to be eight lanes in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51/WIS 19. I could see a case though for going all the way to Portage/WIS 78, and I'm glad the new Wisconsin River bridge is being planned with a fourth lane in mind.

Traffic isn't nearly deserving of 8 lanes all the way to Portage.

I tend to agree, which is why I only think they should widen it in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51. Widening between Portage and the Dells should be a higher priority. But I do think the Wisconsin River bridge should be rebuilt to accommodate a fourth lane.

I would say make I-39/90 to 4 lanes each way between Hwy N and Hwy V. The reason for those exits instead of the Beltline to US 51 is because of the overall growth that has continued in Dane County which is the 3rd fastest growing county in Wisconsin. Compare some of the towns in that corridor besides Madison and their growth in the last 20 years.
Madison 259,680 up 23.9%
Cottage Grove 7143 up 75.9%
Stoughton 13,114 up 4.6%
McFarland 9031 up 40.7%
Sun Prairie 34,661 up 67.0%
Waunakee 14,052 up 54.8%
Windsor 7,644 up 44.6%
De Forest 10,691 up 43.6%
Dane 1135 up 29.6%
Arlington 820 up 69.4%
Lodi 3092 up 7.2%

[JREwing78]

WisDOT left themselves room on I-39/90 for an additional lane between County N and the Beltline; it can be added relatively easily when traffic warrants. North of the Beltline, I would agree it's time for 4 through lanes to County V.

[midwesternroadguy]

I think it really just needs to be eight lanes in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51/WIS 19. I could see a case though for going all the way to Portage/WIS 78, and I’m glad the new Wisconsin River bridge is being planned with a fourth lane in mind.

Traffic isn't nearly deserving of 8 lanes all the way to Portage.

I tend to agree, which is why I only think they should widen it in the Madison area, from the Beltline to US 51. Widening between Portage and the Dells should be a higher priority. But I do think the Wisconsin River bridge should be rebuilt to accommodate a fourth lane.

I would say make I-39/90 to 4 lanes each way between Hwy N and Hwy V. The reason for those exits instead of the Beltline to US 51 is because of the overall growth that has continued in Dane County which is the 3rd fastest growing county in Wisconsin. Compare some of the towns in that corridor besides Madison and their growth in the last 20 years.
Madison 259,680 up 23.9%
Cottage Grove 7143 up 75.9%
Stoughton 13,114 up 4.6%
McFarland 9031 up 40.7%
Sun Prairie 34,661 up 67.0%
Waunakee 14,052 up 54.8%
Windsor 7,644 up 44.6%
De Forest 10,691 up 43.6%
Dane 1135 up 29.6%
Arlington 820 up 69.4%
Lodi 3092 up 7.2%

In terms of absolute (versus relative) population growth, Dane County is the fastest growing county in the state by far.

Along the lines of additional freeway capacity in Madison, the Beltline flex lane project has reportedly started with completion anticipated late this year or early 2022 from Whitney Way to I-39.   Usage will be open to all traffic during peak hours and controlled by an overhead sign with a red X or green arrow only over the flex lane.  A quick fix for a corridor with limited options.  It will be interesting to see how cross-gradients and drainage are addressed. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I am not a proponent of the proposed flex-lane. I personally do not think shoulder lanes should be used as traffic lanes. It seems to me like a band-aid approach (although major improvements to the beltline might not come until the 2030s at the earliest, since the PEL report has just been completed and the NEPA report is yet to begin). I might support the flex-lane proposal if it were congestion-priced, but since no road in Wisconsin has ever been tolled, that might be a hard sell.

[triplemultiplex]

I've said before that I believe the Beltline's greatest deficiency is too many close-spaced interchanges which causes too much weaving.
Also, too many people to use the Beltline for only very short distances, like two exits, due to the lack of local street connections.  Thus more traffic is trying to weave together.  I don't know how successful this flex lane is going to be.  Someone at WisDOT must have some numbers that say it will, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, but my impression is that simply adding a lane, whether permanent or flex, will just turn 6 lanes of gridlock into 8 lanes of gridlock because it does nothing to fix the interchanges problem.

[SEWIGuy]

I've said before that I believe the Beltline's greatest deficiency is too many close-spaced interchanges which causes too much weaving.
Also, too many people to use the Beltline for only very short distances, like two exits, due to the lack of local street connections.  Thus more traffic is trying to weave together.  I don't know how successful this flex lane is going to be.  Someone at WisDOT must have some numbers that say it will, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, but my impression is that simply adding a lane, whether permanent or flex, will just turn 6 lanes of gridlock into 8 lanes of gridlock because it does nothing to fix the interchanges problem.

I think you are 100% right about the deficiencies about the Beltline.  People take the Beltline to go everywhere, because it is the only reasonable way to get from one side of the city to the other.  The lakes and isthmus that make Madison beautiful also make it a traffic headache.

[midwesternroadguy]

I share concerns about this approach.  Will people follow the off-peak prohibitions, or continue to still use the flex lane?  Growing up in Madison, I still use the Beltline for local destinations and I don't see a lot of options for closing ramps other than at Seminole Hwy. and some, but not all, at Todd Drive, Monona Drive,  and Rimrock Road. 

I'm not convinced that the Level of Service is affected solely by interchange spacing, as there are volume issues too. 

I have concerns about the physical design of the flex lane such as the cross pitch. It will be an interesting experiment. 

And I still think that a North Beltline should be back on the table.  When I am in Madison, I'm on the very far west side, and a North Beltline would be very useful.  Unfortunately, Waunakee has developed its south side, so a corridor would be limited to the existing County Trunk M.  A new alignment would have to be west of Waunakee making it less useful for many. An opportunity lost.

[skluth]

Re: Shoulders as Flex Lanes. I lived in Tidewater several years ago. I-264 has rush hour flex lanes east of I-64 for several miles, or at least did in the mid-aughts. I lived in Portsmouth and usually worked at the main Navy base, so I rarely saw them in action. But the few times I did, they seemed to work fairly well. I don't recall drivers ever using them before the use time kicked in, though I do remember seeing cars use them up to an hour after they were supposedly closed because of the heavy evening rush hour traffic between I-64 and Independence. I believe trucks were not permitted to use them and the shoulders were almost as good as the regular driving lanes.

This is my only experience with flex lanes and it was about 15 years ago, so I don't know if they'd work with the same drivers today.

[SEWIGuy]

I share concerns about this approach.  Will people follow the off-peak prohibitions, or continue to still use the flex lane?  Growing up in Madison, I still use the Beltline for local destinations and I don't see a lot of options for closing ramps other than at Seminole Hwy. and some, but not all, at Todd Drive, Monona Drive,  and Rimrock Road. 

I'm not convinced that the Level of Service is affected solely by interchange spacing, as there are volume issues too. 

I have concerns about the physical design of the flex lane such as the cross pitch. It will be an interesting experiment. 

And I still think that a North Beltline should be back on the table.  When I am in Madison, I'm on the very far west side, and a North Beltline would be very useful.  Unfortunately, Waunakee has developed its south side, so a corridor would be limited to the existing County Trunk M.  A new alignment would have to be west of Waunakee making it less useful for many. An opportunity lost.

I'm not sure the north Beltline would do much to allieve congestion on the current Beltline.

In what circumstances would someone take that route?  It would be local traffic in the north suburbs who already use routes in the area, and people on the far west side that head north of the city.  None of this relieves traffic on the current Beltline. 

Honestly there aren't a lot of good choices here.  Having better traffic options to get *through* the city would be helpful, but that will never happen.  Again, the geography that makes Madison beautiful also makes it a mess traffic wise.

[midwesternroadguy]

I think that a North Beltline would be used by more than the northern suburbs.  From West Towne and the developing areas out to Pioneer Road in the Town of Middleton, having an alternate route to access the Interstate system and US 151 to the northeast would divert some traffic from the South Beltline.   Looking at the backups at the US 12/County K intersection, this is an indication of unmet needs in the corridor.  Most people that I know in Madison will do anything to avoid the South Beltline at peak hour (pre-COVID). But as you mention, what alternatives are there? 

(I'm amazed at the amount of inbound traffic heading into the isthmus in the evening peak hour, so that doesn't leave many other options.  Madison is not the same city it was 40 years ago)

[SEWIGuy]

I think that a North Beltline would be used by more than the northern suburbs.  From West Towne and the developing areas out to Pioneer Road in the Town of Middleton, having an alternate route to access the Interstate system and US 151 to the northeast would divert some traffic from the South Beltline.   Looking at the backups at the US 12/County K intersection, this is an indication of unmet needs in the corridor.  Most people that I know in Madison will do anything to avoid the South Beltline at peak hour (pre-COVID). But as you mention, what alternatives are there? 

(I'm amazed at the amount of inbound traffic heading into the isthmus in the evening peak hour, so that doesn't leave many other options.  Madison is not the same city it was 40 years ago)

I am fully aware of Madison. 

But this is my point.  If I am at West Towne mall, and I want to go to East Towne mall, the fastest way is the Beltline to the interstate to High Crossing Road.  A north Beltline would not change that.  It would go too far north to make it work. 

I do think they should have a 3dwi routing of some sort in the area that can be upgraded over time.  (K, M, River Road, 19?)  Would likely never be a full Beltline but a corridor that can be developed at least into a boulevard of some sort.

[Weathernerd645]

Hello, long-time lurker here who wants to give their 2 cents. I personally don't think the North Beltline is ever going to happen. The corridor that it has been proposed for has been too built up over the last 30 or so years. Can't do a county M route cause of Bishop's Bay and Governor Nelson. K would be too far from Madison and just promote more sprawl in that direction. 19 is way too far north for such a bypass on the west side and the east side is pretty much built up from 39/90/94 to 151. Maybe back in the 70's or 80's it could have been built, but not now. Besides that the terrain and environmental areas aren't very friendly for building a highway with Cherokee Marsh and Governor Nelson State Park. It's just not possible nowadays.

[thspfc]

Hello, long-time lurker here who wants to give their 2 cents. I personally don't think the North Beltline is ever going to happen. The corridor that it has been proposed for has been too built up over the last 30 or so years. Can't do a county M route cause of Bishop's Bay and Governor Nelson. K would be too far from Madison and just promote more sprawl in that direction. 19 is way too far north for such a bypass on the west side and the east side is pretty much built up from 39/90/94 to 151. Maybe back in the 70's or 80's it could have been built, but not now. Besides that the terrain and environmental areas aren't very friendly for building a highway with Cherokee Marsh and Governor Nelson State Park. It's just not possible nowadays.

100% agree. The North Beltline ship sank to the bottom of Lake Mendota at least two decades ago. The residential growth along Woodland Drive just north of CTH-M makes a freeway through there impossible. The only remaining option would be starting the beltway at 39/90/94 near DeForest and go around the north side of Waunakee then dipping back south towards CTH-K. But that would pretty much defeat the purpose, as such a highway would be too far north to take traffic off CTH-M, CTH-K, CTH-Q, WI-19, and WI-113.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think any new roadways will be built in the Madison area. One pure fantasy idea I had was to build bridges or tunnels across Lakes Monona, Mendota and Waubesa. However, I am not delusional enough to believe any such proposals would ever see the light of day.

[sparker]

I don't think any new roadways will be built in the Madison area. One pure fantasy idea I had was to build bridges or tunnels across Lakes Monona, Mendota and Waubesa. However, I am not delusional enough to believe any such proposals would ever see the light of day.

Only railroads were able to get away with that (e.g. the rail bridge crossing at Monona Bay) to any extent!

[midwesternroadguy]

Hello, long-time lurker here who wants to give their 2 cents. I personally don't think the North Beltline is ever going to happen. The corridor that it has been proposed for has been too built up over the last 30 or so years. Can't do a county M route cause of Bishop's Bay and Governor Nelson. K would be too far from Madison and just promote more sprawl in that direction. 19 is way too far north for such a bypass on the west side and the east side is pretty much built up from 39/90/94 to 151. Maybe back in the 70's or 80's it could have been built, but not now. Besides that the terrain and environmental areas aren't very friendly for building a highway with Cherokee Marsh and Governor Nelson State Park. It's just not possible nowadays.

100% agree. The North Beltline ship sank to the bottom of Lake Mendota at least two decades ago. The residential growth along Woodland Drive just north of CTH-M makes a freeway through there impossible. The only remaining option would be starting the beltway at 39/90/94 near DeForest and go around the north side of Waunakee then dipping back south towards CTH-K. But that would pretty much defeat the purpose, as such a highway would be too far north to take traffic off CTH-M, CTH-K, CTH-Q, WI-19, and WI-113.

I agree and I said something similar above by saying that the County M corridor isn’t available and anything else would have to go west of Waunakee instead of south of it.  As Westport, Waunakee, Windsor, and DeForest develop, that westerly routing would be closer to the urban fringe than it is now.  But the likelihood of any new high-volume corridors in Dane County is low.  However northern Dane County has a somewhat different attitude toward development than the Town of Dunn in southern Dane County which was the location of the “supplemental” South Beltline proposal a few years  ago. Dunn is about as anti-development as they get, and I don’t know who thought that that proposal would ever have any wings. 

Back to the North Beltline/North Mendota Parkway:   The parkway proposal still has some life as a moderate-speed parkway according to the 2019 link below.  The County K alignment north of Middleton makes more sense than following County M the entire way into Middleton.

https://www.hngnews.com/waunakee_tribune/news/local/article_2e931902-19bf-5f19-9480-641b47a1c914.html

[hobsini2]

Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

[thspfc]

Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

We're not talking about Texas here. This is Wisconsin. Dane County, Wisconsin to be exact. Highways need to be justified ten times over again for them to be built. If Wisconsin was Texas or Florida, I-94 would have been eight, maybe even ten or twelve lanes between Waukesha and downtown Milwaukee several years ago.

[hobsini2]

Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

We're not talking about Texas here. This is Wisconsin. Dane County, Wisconsin to be exact. Highways need to be justified ten times over again for them to be built. If Wisconsin was Texas or Florida, I-94 would have been eight, maybe even ten or twelve lanes between Waukesha and downtown Milwaukee several years ago.

As liberal as Madison is, and by the way I am a liberal politically, the reality is that north and east suburbs will be a major traffic nightmare if it is not addressed soon.
If Madison had a light rail system, that could be different alternative. But it doesn't. I once took the bus system between East Towne and Camp Randall. That was over an hour each way.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Having a North Beltline that would be north of Wis 19 between US 12 and US 151 would take traffic off of 19 in Waunakee and Sun Prairie, two of the fastest growing suburbs. Are we going to wait for Sun Prairie to be 50k or De Forest and Waunakee being 30k or Cottage Grove being 25k before that problem is addressed? All of those places have a lot of room to build out to those population numbers.  I actually think a 60 mile full loop would help both the north and east sides tremendously with the growth going on currently. The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

We're not talking about Texas here. This is Wisconsin. Dane County, Wisconsin to be exact. Highways need to be justified ten times over again for them to be built. If Wisconsin was Texas or Florida, I-94 would have been eight, maybe even ten or twelve lanes between Waukesha and downtown Milwaukee several years ago.

As liberal as Madison is, and by the way I am a liberal politically, the reality is that north and east suburbs will be a major traffic nightmare if it is not addressed soon.
If Madison had a light rail system, that could be different alternative. But it doesn't. I once took the bus system between East Towne and Camp Randall. That was over an hour each way.

Similar political views, but bikes seem to be the only allowed alternative transport game in town these days.

[JREwing78]

If Madison had a light rail system, that could be different alternative. But it doesn't. I once took the bus system between East Towne and Camp Randall. That was over an hour each way.

Madison's solution is Bus Rapid Transit, but even that is still in planning hell: https://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/routes-schedules/bus-rapid-transit

[Revive 755]

The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

IIRC the 1970's era freeway/expressway planning for Wisconsin had another freeway south of the Beltline.

[mrose]

The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

IIRC the 1970's era freeway/expressway planning for Wisconsin had another freeway south of the Beltline.

Growing up, we'd use CTH-M as a shortcut from US 14 over to 18-151 if we were coming up from Janesville. Seems like they could have built that corridor up if they had wanted to. I'm guess it's too developed these days.

[SEWIGuy]

The problem with the Beltline is there are no decent alternates for traffic. Maybe a divided highway from Verona to I-39/90 near Hwy N would help take 151 and 18 through traffic off the Beltline.

IIRC the 1970's era freeway/expressway planning for Wisconsin had another freeway south of the Beltline.

Growing up, we'd use CTH-M as a shortcut from US 14 over to 18-151 if we were coming up from Janesville. Seems like they could have built that corridor up if they had wanted to. I'm guess it's too developed these days.

I just don't see how that would take much traffic off the Beltline though.

[mrose]

I don't necessarily know if it would or wouldn't.... was just thinking about loud about where another freeway south of the beltline might have gone.