Now that the Baraboo Bypass is open, what is the future of US 12 in Wisconsin?
1. Will there be a bypass at Sauk City? I know there can't be any talk about it until 2020.
2. Will DOT restart plans for having a bypass in Fort Atkinson eventually?
3. Will they eventually expand the freeway end at Elkhorn to eventually connect with the Whitewater Bypass?
4. What parts of US 12 does the DOT want to turn into a freeway or at least expand the parts that are a freeway? I know they are looking at plans to expanding the freeway from outside Middleton to Highway 19 at the very least but are there any other parts?
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 20, 2017, 09:46:11 PM
Now that the Baraboo Bypass is open, what is the future of US 12 in Wisconsin?
1. Will there be a bypass at Sauk City? I know there can't be any talk about it until 2020.
2. Will DOT restart plans for having a bypass in Fort Atkinson eventually?
3. Will they eventually expand the freeway end at Elkhorn to eventually connect with the Whitewater Bypass?
4. What parts of US 12 does the DOT want to turn into a freeway or at least expand the parts that are a freeway? I know they are looking at plans to expanding the freeway from outside Middleton to Highway 19 at the very least but are there any other parts?
2. I doubt it. Nothing will happen for decades, if ever. Unless traffic counts go way up, it really isn't needed except on some summer weekends. Rehabbing US-12 between Fort Atkinson and Whitewater was supposed to take place next year, but now most of it's been pushed back to 2022. It's just not a high priority.
3. I doubt this as well. While US-12 between Elkhorn and WI-20 can be a bit of a mess, it's not terrible. And the expense and controversy of cutting through the Kettle Moraine likely means it will politically never fly.
The only way these go forward IMO is if Illinois ever upgrades their portion, which looks likely never to happen either.
In the majors project report, US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is being looked at as a major project candidate. Whitewater is now the largest city without a 4 lane highway connection, so there may be a push to include the city to Wisconsin's freeway/expressway network. That was the argument that Marshfield made for upgrading US 10. I have a link to the report below.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/status.pdf
I'm pretty sure, absent a massive influx of highway funding, that nothing's going to happen to US-12 between Fort Atkinson and Elkhorn, or with US-14 between Darien and Madison. It may be on the books, but there's not much political will to fix the funding issues with WisDOT.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 20, 2017, 09:46:11 PM
Now that the Baraboo Bypass is open, what is the future of US 12 in Wisconsin?
1. Will there be a bypass at Sauk City? I know there can't be any talk about it until 2020.
2. Will DOT restart plans for having a bypass in Fort Atkinson eventually?
3. Will they eventually expand the freeway end at Elkhorn to eventually connect with the Whitewater Bypass?
4. What parts of US 12 does the DOT want to turn into a freeway or at least expand the parts that are a freeway? I know they are looking at plans to expanding the freeway from outside Middleton to Highway 19 at the very least but are there any other parts?
1. I see that as likely, if the funds are available.
2. I think that ship sailed. The traffic numbers don't support it at this point.
3. Unlikely. With interstate speeds at 70MPH, and the I-90 expansion, there's no real need for it anymore. The intention of an "upgraded" US-12 wasn't to serve Whitewater with a four-lane route, it was to provide a Chicago-to-Madison route.
4. I don't see many upgrades of US-12 near or mid-term. The traffic counts don't justify it, and as time moves on, much of that corridor just isn't as necessary as it once was. With reduced DOT funding, there are many other projects that need to be at the front of the line.
I really doubt there will by a bypass of Sauk City in the near future. But I could see the remaining 2 lane portion upgraded. Aside from that I would not expect many changes to US 12 in the next 10 years or so. What I would like to see is an interchange built at hwy K in Dane County but that's about it.
I also think looking at some improvements between Madison and Fort Atkinson make sense. I don't know if this would be addressed when they look at the I-39/90 interchange, but the Millpond Road and County AB intersections just east of the interchange are terrible.
I will take a wait-and-see approach, though I believe the assessments of the other posters are likely to be accurate.
Other than building a Sauk City bypass, I think the US 12 corridor is fine as it is. The corridor does not need to be a freeway from the state line to Madison as previously proposed, since FAP 420 will never be built. With the lack of transportation funding, WisDOT needs to focus on fixing and upgrading existing routes as opposed to building new.
Quote from: peterj920 on August 20, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
In the majors project report, US 12 between Elkhorn and Whitewater is being looked at as a major project candidate. Whitewater is now the largest city without a 4 lane highway connection, so there may be a push to include the city to Wisconsin's freeway/expressway network. That was the argument that Marshfield made for upgrading US 10. I have a link to the report below.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/status.pdf
As a result, they wasted a ton of $$$ on building that US 10 Marshfield spur and it really wasn't necessary. You can't continue to make that argument forever, otherwise, WisDOT will be building four lane highways up the wazoo. Any four lane from Elkhorn to Whitewater will serve primarily local traffic, since it will not connect to anything regional. Since traffic counts really don't justify four lanes from Fort Atkinson to Elkhorn, I'd rather just have WisDOT improve the existing route and call it a day.
On the flip side, is there any desire to eventually relocate US 12 to parallel interstates in certain areas of the state?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2017, 12:07:45 AM
On the flip side, is there any desire to eventually relocate US 12 to parallel interstates in certain areas of the state?
Doubtful since US 12/Wis 16/Wis 175 have mostly been the same since parallel roads have been built alongside them. Wis 175 was decommissioned north of US 151 through Fond Du Lac, but in that instance US 45 was also nearby.
I bring up Wis 175 because I thought that would be a prime candidate to be a county road, but it remains a state highway along I-41. US 12 does carry a fair amount of local traffic from Eau Claire westward as that area of Wisconsin continues to grow.
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2017, 02:14:01 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2017, 12:07:45 AM
On the flip side, is there any desire to eventually relocate US 12 to parallel interstates in certain areas of the state?
Doubtful since US 12/Wis 16/Wis 175 have mostly been the same since parallel roads have been built alongside them. Wis 175 was decommissioned north of US 151 through Fond Du Lac, but in that instance US 45 was also nearby.
I bring up Wis 175 because I thought that would be a prime candidate to be a county road, but it remains a state highway along I-41. US 12 does carry a fair amount of local traffic from Eau Claire westward as that area of Wisconsin continues to grow.
I've always wondered if they kept 175 due to it's potential importance as a alternate route in the area, especially between Slinger and FdL.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2017, 12:07:45 AM
On the flip side, is there any desire to eventually relocate US 12 to parallel interstates in certain areas of the state?
I can see this happening in some parts. For instance, between Wisconsin Dells and Black River Falls where traffic is pretty sparse. It may not happen in decades, but if WIDOT gets more strapped for cash, it's a simple way to reduce mileage.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 22, 2017, 09:40:27 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2017, 12:07:45 AM
On the flip side, is there any desire to eventually relocate US 12 to parallel interstates in certain areas of the state?
I can see this happening in some parts. For instance, between Wisconsin Dells and Black River Falls where traffic is pretty sparse. It may not happen in decades, but if WIDOT gets more strapped for cash, it's a simple way to reduce mileage.
There's so many state highways that could be eliminated, but I notice that they are mainly in southwest Wisconsin and aren't kept up as well. I have no idea why Wis 127 is still a state highway since it's an old longer alignment of US 16 that doesn't connect with any towns. Wis 134, Wis 79, Wis 179, Wis 154, and Wis 187 are all lightly traveled and do not connect with any communities if any significant size.
Near where I am in Green Bay, County R is an alternate to I-43 that runs along decommissioned US 141. Do not see why Wis 175, and US 12/Wis 16 could be truncated or relocated along existing interstates but WISDOT is a mysterious organization in a lot of ways where a lot of things they do are questionable.
Agreed on some of these shorter highways. I have always thought Wis 134 was a pointless highway and should be turned into a county highway. I remember back in 1991 when the DOT decided to truncate Wis 142 to end at I-94 instead of Wis 32 like it used to and make that part CTH S. I thought it didn't make sense since Wis 158 should have been a better candidate to turn into a county highway.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 23, 2017, 09:27:34 AM
Agreed on some of these shorter highways. I have always thought Wis 134 was a pointless highway and should be turned into a county highway. I remember back in 1991 when the DOT decided to truncate Wis 142 to end at I-94 instead of Wis 32 like it used to and make that part CTH S. I thought it didn't make sense since Wis 158 should have been a better candidate to turn into a county highway.
WIDOT is doing work on WI-134 this summer. I would have thought this would have been a good time for a decommissioning and extension of Highway O southward. But no indication that is happening.
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2017, 02:14:01 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2017, 12:07:45 AM
On the flip side, is there any desire to eventually relocate US 12 to parallel interstates in certain areas of the state?
Doubtful since US 12/Wis 16/Wis 175 have mostly been the same since parallel roads have been built alongside them. Wis 175 was decommissioned north of US 151 through Fond Du Lac, but in that instance US 45 was also nearby.
I bring up Wis 175 because I thought that would be a prime candidate to be a county road, but it remains a state highway along I-41. US 12 does carry a fair amount of local traffic from Eau Claire westward as that area of Wisconsin continues to grow.
IL-251 is still in existence it run parallel to I-39.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 23, 2017, 02:02:21 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 22, 2017, 02:14:01 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2017, 12:07:45 AM
On the flip side, is there any desire to eventually relocate US 12 to parallel interstates in certain areas of the state?
Doubtful since US 12/Wis 16/Wis 175 have mostly been the same since parallel roads have been built alongside them. Wis 175 was decommissioned north of US 151 through Fond Du Lac, but in that instance US 45 was also nearby.
I bring up Wis 175 because I thought that would be a prime candidate to be a county road, but it remains a state highway along I-41. US 12 does carry a fair amount of local traffic from Eau Claire westward as that area of Wisconsin continues to grow.
IL-251 is still in existence it run parallel to I-39.
And it's pretty damn stupid south of Oglesby as well. IMHO, IL-251 should be decommissioned and turned over to the counties south of there.
Is there a reason US 51 doesn't run on IL 251's alignment?
Quote from: tribar on August 23, 2017, 02:59:54 PM
Is there a reason US 51 doesn't run on IL 251's alignment?
I-39 was built as the US-51 freeway originally. The number (I-39) was applied after the freeway was designed and mostly built.
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 02:49:00 PM
IMHO, IL-251 should be decommissioned and turned over to the counties south of there.
Chances are it would remain state maintained like old US 66 and a lot of other bypassed alignments. Might as well sign it for navigation purposes.
Quote from: NE2 on August 23, 2017, 04:03:25 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 02:49:00 PM
IMHO, IL-251 should be decommissioned and turned over to the counties south of there.
Chances are it would remain state maintained like old US 66 and a lot of other bypassed alignments. Might as well sign it for navigation purposes.
Actually, many of the old US-66 alignments that are not either current state highways (IL-59, IL-126 as examples) or I-55 frontage roads (of which there are many), are either county roads, township roads, or municipal streets.
IL-251 south of Oglesby is pretty much worthless for navigation as it is close enough in many cases to be an I-39 frontage road.
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 04:45:45 PM
Actually, many of the old US-66 alignments that are not either current state highways (IL-59, IL-126 as examples) or I-55 frontage roads (of which there are many), are either county roads, township roads, or municipal streets.
Not according to GIS data. The entire length of old US 66 outside cities is still state maintained. For example, here is what IDOT maintains near Staunton-Mount Olive (sorry about the shitty cellphone photo; printscreen wasn't working for an unknown reason):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4o2mSbr.jpg&hash=25932800b678ba5d7f97e270db2a86ecd46bb345)
Everything in red has MNT_2=1, meaning IDOT has maintenance responsibility (http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Manuals-Split/OPP/IRIS/Item-013.pdf).
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 03:19:27 PM
Quote from: tribar on August 23, 2017, 02:59:54 PM
Is there a reason US 51 doesn't run on IL 251's alignment?
I-39 was built as the US-51 freeway originally. The number (I-39) was applied after the freeway was designed and mostly built.
Yep, I-39 didn't show up until it was completed to I-80. The first segment that opened in the early 80s (I-90 to IL-5/I-88) was signed as just US 51.
My case for continued improvements to US 12 between Madison and Elkhorn is once there is a bypass of Ft. Atkinson and the 'corner cut' is complete, US 12 to I-43 becomes an attractive alternate route between Madison and Milwaukee. 2 lanes would be just fine for this purpose.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 21, 2017, 12:40:15 PM
I also think looking at some improvements between Madison and Fort Atkinson make sense. I don't know if this would be addressed when they look at the I-39/90 interchange, but the Millpond Road and County AB intersections just east of the interchange are terrible.
AB has an interchange in its future. The City of Madison sees a four-lane divided arterial road running north on AB from there transitioning into Sprecher Rd and on north toward Sun Prairie.
Millpond would get an overpass and some dumb little jughandle ramps in the last preferred alternative for the Beltline interchange before it was put on hold for lack of funding.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 20, 2017, 09:56:57 PM
And the expense and controversy of cutting through the Kettle Moraine likely means it will politically never fly.
A two-lane option would not need any more r/w through the Kettle Moraine.
I wouldn't mind seeing some of those signals on the Whitewater bypass replaced with super-2 interchanges, now that I think about it.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2017, 09:59:14 PM
My case for continued improvements to US 12 between Madison and Elkhorn is once there is a bypass of Ft. Atkinson and the 'corner cut' is complete, US 12 to I-43 becomes an attractive alternate route between Madison and Milwaukee. 2 lanes would be just fine for this purpose.
Except that proposal will likely never actually happen. Well, perhaps the Ft. Atkinson bypass, but I don't see much else happening there for political and financial reasons. I see the upgraded I-90 and the shiny new 70MPH speed limits being the solution for now, with any preferred route being US-12 to I-43 to I-90.
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 29, 2017, 07:01:02 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2017, 09:59:14 PM
My case for continued improvements to US 12 between Madison and Elkhorn is once there is a bypass of Ft. Atkinson and the 'corner cut' is complete, US 12 to I-43 becomes an attractive alternate route between Madison and Milwaukee. 2 lanes would be just fine for this purpose.
Except that proposal will likely never actually happen. Well, perhaps the Ft. Atkinson bypass, but I don't see much else happening there for political and financial reasons. I see the upgraded I-90 and the shiny new 70MPH speed limits being the solution for now, with any preferred route being US-12 to I-43 to I-90.
Yeah I live in Fort Atkinson, I can't see US-12 being a legitimate alternative to I-94 from Madison to Milwaukee. I don't even take it now when I want an alternative.
EDIT: In looking this up, the better alternative to I-94 from say Monona to MKE airport is I-39/90 south, WI-59 east, County N to Whitewater, US-12 east, and WI-20 east to East Troy.
I-39/90 swings eastward south of Madison, and with the increased speed limit, makes it a better alternative than US-12.
Probably the best alternative is to take 19 to Watertown then 16 to Waukesha. Much of 16 is already a freeway or at least 4 lane.
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 29, 2017, 07:01:02 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2017, 09:59:14 PM
My case for continued improvements to US 12 between Madison and Elkhorn is once there is a bypass of Ft. Atkinson and the 'corner cut' is complete, US 12 to I-43 becomes an attractive alternate route between Madison and Milwaukee. 2 lanes would be just fine for this purpose.
Except that proposal will likely never actually happen. Well, perhaps the Ft. Atkinson bypass, but I don't see much else happening there for political and financial reasons. I see the upgraded I-90 and the shiny new 70MPH speed limits being the solution for now, with any preferred route being US-12 to I-43 to I-90.
The Ft. Atkinson bypass will never happen as there is too much opposition. And at this point, it is not really needed.
It's time to get real about further freeway upgrades to US 12 between Elkhorn and Madison. It will never connect to anything in Illinois (and won't draw a ton of traffic as a result) and with the recent/ongoing rebuilding & widening of I-39/90 between Madison and I-294, that should be more than enough to handle traffic for a while. Plus, building more freeway leads to more maintenance costs in the future, and WisDOT already overbuilt elsewhere in the state, so dollars will be stretched very thin in the future.
It's been three years since I first brought this up. I know the Fort Atkinson bypass is dead and will not happen. I am curious about the Sauk City bypass now that it is 2020. Any updates on this?
I doubt a Sauk City bypass will be built anytime soon. Maybe in 20 to 30 years, but probably not sooner.
What 4-laning US-12 between Madison and Elkhorn does is make an attractive alternative for traffic destined for Lake Geneva, Kenosha and the northern Chicago suburbs. It also would relieve a lot of traffic pressure on the existing US-12/Hwy 67 north of Elkhorn, as Whitewater-bound traffic has a more direct path.
Honestly, I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee would likely be 6-laned before a 4-lane US-12 east of Madison happens.
Right. The four lanes may one day extend to Cambridge but I really doubt it will ever go further than that. Most of the traffic is local and 99% of the time is completely manageable with two lanes.
There is no need for any further four lane upgrades on US 12 between Madison and the Illinois border, considering nothing will be done on the Illinois side.
The next area of focus needs to be the Sauk City bypass and removing the stoplights between the Beltline and Sauk City.
Also, the pavement from just south of Ski Hi Road down to Business 12/Prairie Road needs to be rebuilt to modern specifications.
A Sauk City bypass would require a new and very expensive bridge over the Wisconsin River, so it would probably never be worth the price.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 25, 2020, 11:26:01 PM
A Sauk City bypass would require a new and very expensive bridge over the Wisconsin River, so it would probably never be worth the price.
they can fill in the 4 lane gap easy with no bridge work.
Quote from: I-39 on February 25, 2020, 09:14:37 PM
There is no need for any further four lane upgrades on US 12 between Madison and the Illinois border, considering nothing will be done on the Illinois side.
The next area of focus needs to be the Sauk City bypass and removing the stoplights between the Beltline and Sauk City.
Also, the pavement from just south of Ski Hi Road down to Business 12/Prairie Road needs to be rebuilt to modern specifications.
I would suggest that extending the four laning incrementally to Cambridge over the course of the next 20 years will be necessary as more and more people commute to Madison along that route.
I doubt US 12/18 will be four-laned east of CTH-N anytime soon. The DOT did a corridor study of the US 12 corridor between CTH-N and STH-26 from 2011-2014): https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12nto26/default.aspx. It looked at intersection improvements, and a couple realignments, but did not investigate the possibility of four-laning the corridor. US 12 will probably remain a two lane highway indefinitely.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 27, 2020, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: I-39 on February 25, 2020, 09:14:37 PM
There is no need for any further four lane upgrades on US 12 between Madison and the Illinois border, considering nothing will be done on the Illinois side.
The next area of focus needs to be the Sauk City bypass and removing the stoplights between the Beltline and Sauk City.
Also, the pavement from just south of Ski Hi Road down to Business 12/Prairie Road needs to be rebuilt to modern specifications.
I would suggest that extending the four laning incrementally to Cambridge over the course of the next 20 years will be necessary as more and more people commute to Madison along that route.
I agree there is already an interchange at WI-73 would make perfect sense.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 20, 2020, 06:26:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 27, 2020, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: I-39 on February 25, 2020, 09:14:37 PM
There is no need for any further four lane upgrades on US 12 between Madison and the Illinois border, considering nothing will be done on the Illinois side.
The next area of focus needs to be the Sauk City bypass and removing the stoplights between the Beltline and Sauk City.
Also, the pavement from just south of Ski Hi Road down to Business 12/Prairie Road needs to be rebuilt to modern specifications.
I would suggest that extending the four laning incrementally to Cambridge over the course of the next 20 years will be necessary as more and more people commute to Madison along that route.
I agree there is already an interchange at WI-73 would make perfect sense.
And that interchange with 73 was desperately needed ages ago. Having 73 thru traffic come to a T at 2 different points with 12-18 was not a good idea and did result in many accidents.
A Sauk City bypass would be nice, but what's urgently needed in that corridor is an interchange at CTH K just north of Middleton. That traffic light suuuuuuxxxxx.
Why this isn't a higher priority is stupefying. It's not just a matter of inconvenience; that intersection is glazed with skid marks of countless vehicles traveling at freeway speeds suddenly having to slam on the brakes for a damn light that's changing. It should have been part of the four lane conversion/Middleton bypass ~16 years ago.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 20, 2020, 08:24:12 PM
A Sauk City bypass would be nice, but what's urgently needed in that corridor is an interchange at CTH K just north of Middleton. That traffic light suuuuuuxxxxx.
Why this isn't a higher priority is stupefying. It's not just a matter of inconvenience; that intersection is glazed with skid marks of countless vehicles traveling at freeway speeds suddenly having to slam on the brakes for a damn light that's changing. It should have been part of the four lane conversion/Middleton bypass ~16 years ago.
This. The stoplights at Hwy 19 and County P should be eliminated as well. It looks like a freeway. It drives like a freeway. It has no business having stoplights on it.
I agree all of those should be removed. But wasn't the Middleton bypassed designed almost 25 years ago? When it opened those intersections weren't problems. To say they should have always been designed that way is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 21, 2020, 08:27:46 AM
I agree all of those should be removed. But wasn't the Middleton bypassed designed almost 25 years ago? When it opened those intersections weren't problems. To say they should have always been designed that way is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Perhaps, but it also signals to me a significant lack of foresight on the part of WisDOT. It's the most direct route from Waunakee to the west side of the Madison metro. To not expect that would quickly become a traffic hazard is silly. There should have been at least ROW acquired in anticipation of having to put an interchange in at County K.
Not only is there a safety issue on US 12, but there is a serious capacity issue for County Trunk K, particularly at peak hour at that intersection. This will only worsen, bringing up the need for a North Beltline/Mendota Parkway. Unfortunately, the most recent proposal was to upgrade STH 19, 113, County Trunks M and K. With the new roundabout at the 19,113, County I intersection, that routing seems even more convoluted for a bypass. Throw in the fact that Waunakee is aggressively developing land north of M, there isn't much hope for a new corridor, regardless of the level of political resistance. Sigh.
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 21, 2020, 10:24:11 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 21, 2020, 08:27:46 AM
I agree all of those should be removed. But wasn't the Middleton bypassed designed almost 25 years ago? When it opened those intersections weren't problems. To say they should have always been designed that way is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Perhaps, but it also signals to me a significant lack of foresight on the part of WisDOT. It's the most direct route from Waunakee to the west side of the Madison metro. To not expect that would quickly become a traffic hazard is silly. There should have been at least ROW acquired in anticipation of having to put an interchange in at County K.
Wait, are we talking about the same WisDOT that so many accuse of overbuilding?
As SEWIGuy mentioned, this portion of 12 was designed almost a quarter century ago. I doubt WisDOT was planning on how much traffic Middleton ended up creating west of the beltline, nor a little place called Epic.
Had the Interstate Highway Act not been passed in the mid-1950s, IMHO, a major cross-country 'ticket' tollway would likely have been built in the US 12 corridor via Elkhorn and roughly following the modern-day Beltline around Madison, by the late 1950s.
Mike
Quote from: DaBigE on March 23, 2020, 02:25:35 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 21, 2020, 10:24:11 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 21, 2020, 08:27:46 AM
I agree all of those should be removed. But wasn't the Middleton bypassed designed almost 25 years ago? When it opened those intersections weren't problems. To say they should have always been designed that way is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Perhaps, but it also signals to me a significant lack of foresight on the part of WisDOT. It's the most direct route from Waunakee to the west side of the Madison metro. To not expect that would quickly become a traffic hazard is silly. There should have been at least ROW acquired in anticipation of having to put an interchange in at County K.
Wait, are we talking about the same WisDOT that so many accuse of overbuilding?
As SEWIGuy mentioned, this portion of 12 was designed almost a quarter century ago. I doubt WisDOT was planning on how much traffic Middleton ended up creating west of the beltline, nor a little place called Epic.
The volumes were already there to support an interchange when the four lane opened, it's only been getting worse since. Putting stop lights on any high volume expressway is a disaster.
A US 12/County K interchange definitely needs to be a priority within the next decade.
Quote from: I-39 on March 23, 2020, 01:23:59 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 23, 2020, 02:25:35 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 21, 2020, 10:24:11 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 21, 2020, 08:27:46 AM
I agree all of those should be removed. But wasn't the Middleton bypassed designed almost 25 years ago? When it opened those intersections weren't problems. To say they should have always been designed that way is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Perhaps, but it also signals to me a significant lack of foresight on the part of WisDOT. It's the most direct route from Waunakee to the west side of the Madison metro. To not expect that would quickly become a traffic hazard is silly. There should have been at least ROW acquired in anticipation of having to put an interchange in at County K.
Wait, are we talking about the same WisDOT that so many accuse of overbuilding?
As SEWIGuy mentioned, this portion of 12 was designed almost a quarter century ago. I doubt WisDOT was planning on how much traffic Middleton ended up creating west of the beltline, nor a little place called Epic.
The volumes were already there to support an interchange when the four lane opened, it's only been getting worse since. Putting stop lights on any high volume expressway is a disaster.
A US 12/County K interchange definitely needs to be a priority within the next decade.
I stand by my theory that that is the longest light in Wisconsin.
To be fair, I've been on US 12 from Middleton to Sauk City a lot of times since they expanded it and I can't say I disagree. I didn't understand why they didn't make that a freeway originally because it does feel like you are driving on a freeway on that road. I know the DOT has a study about making it a freeway from Middleton to 19 in this link. If they make that a priority over a Sauk City bypass, I could understand that.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/default.aspx
I agree the state just rebuilt US 12 through Sauk City like back in 2013 that wasn't that long ago. I think an interchange at Hwy K is the most vital upgrade needed to Hwy 12 right now.
I agree with everyone's sentiments above. That road needs to be a freeway. However, if I remember right (and I'm sure someone will jump in here) WisDOT had to agree to make it an "expressway" instead in order to get the support it needed to get what is there now built. So really it was the NIMBY's and not WisDOT who is responsible for the mess.
The real missed opportunity was the interchange with Parmenter Street (old US 12 thru Middleton). It's too close to Airport Rd/Century Ave as it is. Would have been better to extend Parmenter as a frontage road up to CTH K and built and interchange there as part of the Middleton Bypass. North of that point, I have less of a problem with cross traffic.
(Well, Parmenter might actual have needed to go around the back side of the quarry east of US 12, but same concept.)
Building the CTH K interchange south of the existing intersection under this scheme could have reduced property impacts and allowed for more future flexibility with the erstwhile North Mendota Parkway concept. It's actually much the same benefit as WisDOT's existing proposal for CTH K, but in a world without a Parmenter Street interchange, it fits better south of K instead of north of K.
The lights at WI 19 and CTH P suck, but they suck less than one positioned at the edge of an urban area fed by a freeway loaded with commuters.
To put it in a historical context, it's like back when US 41/45 still had traffic lights through Menomonee Falls decades ago.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 31, 2020, 10:57:01 AM
The real missed opportunity was the interchange with Parmenter Street (old US 12 thru Middleton). It's too close to Airport Rd/Century Ave as it is. Would have been better to extend Parmenter as a frontage road up to CTH K and built and interchange there as part of the Middleton Bypass. North of that point, I have less of a problem with cross traffic.
Now this is a good idea.
Once they get the CTH-K situation in order, they'll eventually need to upgrade the entirety of US-12 from Middleton to Sauk Prairie to freeway standards, as Sauk becomes more and more of a suburb rather than its own entity. At Springfield Corners, they should build one interchange at WI-19 west, and have WI-19 rerouted along a frontage road until it meets Bates Road. That would include US-12 overpasses at CTH-P and the other WI-19 crossing.
They need to resurface it through Walworth county first. Absolute worst road I've driven on.
Quote from: thspfc on April 01, 2020, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 31, 2020, 10:57:01 AM
The real missed opportunity was the interchange with Parmenter Street (old US 12 thru Middleton). It's too close to Airport Rd/Century Ave as it is. Would have been better to extend Parmenter as a frontage road up to CTH K and built and interchange there as part of the Middleton Bypass. North of that point, I have less of a problem with cross traffic.
Now this is a good idea.
Once they get the CTH-K situation in order, they'll eventually need to upgrade the entirety of US-12 from Middleton to Sauk Prairie to freeway standards, as Sauk becomes more and more of a suburb rather than its own entity. At Springfield Corners, they should build one interchange at WI-19 west, and have WI-19 rerouted along a frontage road until it meets Bates Road. That would include US-12 overpasses at CTH-P and the other WI-19 crossing.
You could build an interchange with CTH-K if you moved it north. If CTH-K continued straight west from where it currently bends south at Pleasant Branch Road until it neared US 12 then did most of it's jog south on the west side of the highway, you'd have enough land to build an interchange and you'd be far enough north of Parmenter Street to have safe distances between access ramps. A frontage road on the east side of US 12 from Fisher Road might be needed to satisfy business owners and residents (except the gas station owner who will be against this regardless). Most of the new road (essentially everything east of US 12) looks to run between fields and possibly different owners, so the only significant piece of property needed is a that nice chunk of farmland NW of Ashton Corners. WisDOT has done this before in other projects like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5370975,-88.4040302,3744m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1) and this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.153162,-87.7288872,2076m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1).
WisDOT's current preferred alternative for CTH K as per the ongoing study for US 12 between Middleton and WI 19:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/map-southseg.pdf
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 07, 2020, 12:34:45 PM
WisDOT's current preferred alternative for CTH K as per the ongoing study for US 12 between Middleton and WI 19:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/12freeway/map-southseg.pdf
Interesting. The Alt 4(?) on the map with the proposed frontage road is essentially what I said.
It looks like there is going to be a project at the US 12-18 and County AB intersection.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-countyab/default.aspx
I've heard there have been a lot of accidents at that intersection so it makes sense.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 27, 2020, 03:47:56 PM
It looks like there is going to be a project at the US 12-18 and County AB intersection.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-countyab/default.aspx
I've heard there have been a lot of accidents at that intersection so it makes sense.
It is very much needed. But I don't understand this.
"Access to US 12/18 will be eliminated at the Millpond Road/Long Drive intersection except for eastbound right turns. Frontage roads will be built to connect into the realigned County AB, allowing traffic from neighborhoods and businesses to gain access to US 12/18 through the interchange."
Why are they keeping the at grade intersections at all if they are building the frontage road. Am I missing something?
Regarding US-12 overall, it's kinda funny how the entire corridor between Wis Dells and the IL border has been proposed/studied for upgrades, yet almost half of it is still two lanes.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2020, 03:55:27 PM
Why are they keeping the at grade intersections at all if they are building the frontage road. Am I missing something?
They're allowing for right turns off US-12/18 onto Millpond Rd, likely to hold down casino traffic circulating through the interchange at County AB. Seems silly to me, but I don't see how that presents a traffic hazard.
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2020, 08:07:45 PM
Regarding US-12 overall, it's kinda funny how the entire corridor between Wis Dells and the IL border has been proposed/studied for upgrades, yet almost half of it is still two lanes.
I like the way WIDOT is handling it. Slowly upgrading the corridor over time since it is mostly local traffic. Between Madison and Cambridge is where it is busiest and will need to upgrade. Between Cambridge and Elkhorn, the two lanes are completely manageable.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2020, 03:55:27 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 27, 2020, 03:47:56 PM
It looks like there is going to be a project at the US 12-18 and County AB intersection.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-countyab/default.aspx
I've heard there have been a lot of accidents at that intersection so it makes sense.
It is very much needed. But I don't understand this.
"Access to US 12/18 will be eliminated at the Millpond Road/Long Drive intersection except for eastbound right turns. Frontage roads will be built to connect into the realigned County AB, allowing traffic from neighborhoods and businesses to gain access to US 12/18 through the interchange."
Why are they keeping the at grade intersections at all if they are building the frontage road. Am I missing something?
It seems odd to be keeping any at-grade access. If you are going to do the freeway conversion, do it all the way.
Furthermore, I'd like to see some progress on an interchange at County K in Middleton.
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2020, 08:07:45 PM
Regarding US-12 overall, it's kinda funny how the entire corridor between Wis Dells and the IL border has been proposed/studied for upgrades, yet almost half of it is still two lanes.
Between Madison and IL, not much more is really needed. The section between Madison and the Dells is where they need to focus. Now that the S curve at County C is being fixed, the top two priorities should be the Sauk City bypass and eliminating the stop lights between Middleton and Sauk City. Once they do those things, they'll be good IMO.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 27, 2020, 03:55:27 PM
"Access to US 12/18 will be eliminated at the Millpond Road/Long Drive intersection except for eastbound right turns. Frontage roads will be built to connect into the realigned County AB, allowing traffic from neighborhoods and businesses to gain access to US 12/18 through the interchange."
Why are they keeping the at grade intersections at all if they are building the frontage road. Am I missing something?
It's all about the casino. They no doubt want it to be as convenient as possible to get people from the freeway to their money factory and I'm sure they pressed WisDOT hard to keep that direct access.
At least for the off ramp. I'm sure they could care less about people leaving.
That Millpond intersection has always sucked with all the garbage trucks making turns in and out of the landfill. Good to see the forward momentum.
I see they're going with a sort of temporary situation on AB north of 12/18 since the long term plan to relocate AB between there and Buckeye Road.
Eventually, it'll be an urban arterial that will feed directly into Sprecher Rd/Reiner Rd forming one corridor from Sun Prairie to US 12/18. In fact if you look at the intersection of Sprecher and Cottage Grove, you can see r/w being held northeast of the existing intersection for the future realignment up there. They even put in the sidewalk already.
Now if we can just get some $$ to get that interchange built at CTH K on the other side of the city, we'll be in business.
I believe when this new exit opens, it will be numbered Exit 269. Eventually, all of US 12/18 from Interstate 39/90 to CTH-N (Exit 272) will be completely up to freeway standards. I wouldn't hold my breath on the freeway upgrades on the opposite end of the corridor happening for quite a while.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 28, 2020, 09:38:05 PM
I believe when this new exit opens, it will be numbered Exit 269. Eventually, all of US 12/18 from Interstate 39/90 to CTH-N (Exit 272) will be completely up to freeway standards. I wouldn't hold my breath on the freeway upgrades on the opposite end of the corridor happening for quite a while.
Also, and I have mentioned this before, I firmly believe that WisDOT made a major and ultimately EXPENSIVE mistake in not designing the I-90/94/US 12 interchange in Lake Delton (Wisconsin Dells area) to have the freeways being completly separate from the local surface traffic, like they are now doing at I-39/90/I-43/WI 81 in Beloit. As that major tourist area grows and develops, the wisdom of having a separate 'system' interchange there for the overhead through traffic between I-90/94 to/from the northwest and US 12 to/from the south will become more and more apparent.
--------
That could also be a good long-term endpoint for downgrading existing US 12 towards Minneapolis - "[US 12] follow [I-94]".
:nod:
Mike
They do need to rebuild the freeway from Lake Geneva to Elkhorn. That road is atrocious. Not add more lanes but just repave it.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 28, 2020, 09:29:41 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 27, 2020, 08:07:45 PM
Regarding US-12 overall, it's kinda funny how the entire corridor between Wis Dells and the IL border has been proposed/studied for upgrades, yet almost half of it is still two lanes.
I like the way WIDOT is handling it. Slowly upgrading the corridor over time since it is mostly local traffic. Between Madison and Cambridge is where it is busiest and will need to upgrade. Between Cambridge and Elkhorn, the two lanes are completely manageable.
The section between Elkhorn and Whitewater, particularly the multiplex with Hwy 67 south of Hwy 20, is horrifically busy during the summer (AADT of about 12,000, but I'd be shocked if it didn't touch 20,000 in summer). Making a 2-lane direct connection between the two cities (at least to start) would pull off that unnecessary traffic north of Elkhorn.
Other than that, converting the three stoplights around Whitewater to interchanges would solve most of the traffic problems for probably another 20 years, until other changes finally demand 4-laning outright. Current AADT of between 5,000 and 7,500 is solid for a 2-lane, but not excessive. Past County N, it drops below 4,000 vpd, hardly worth 4-laning - at least until WisDOT 4-lanes US-12 west of Fort Atkinson.
Long term, if I was in charge of highway planning for Rock County (or, for that matter, WisDOT), I would be pushing for WisDOT take over County N between Newville and Whitewater as an extension of Hwy 20. It carries a large amount of inter-regional traffic (AADT of 5,000 to 7,500, thanks to UW-Whitewater). AADT of 8,500 on Hwy 59 just east of Newville drops to 3,500 at the intersection with County N. By comparison, parallel Hwy 59 only carries about 4,500-5,000 vpd.
The only real deficiency on County N (besides passing lanes) is right where it meets former (now Business) Hwy 26. There are tight curves there and poor visibility at the intersection, making the current 4-way stop an appropriate band-aid. But the traffic on Bus Hwy 26 doesn't justify having the 4-way stop there, and re-configuring the intersection appropriately will be costly.
The Department of Transportation had initiated a study on US 12 between Whitewater and Elkhorn, as seen on page 32 of this document: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/maj-hwy/status.pdf. However, that study was suspended, and I expect the DOT to remove that project from consideration, just like they removed the US 12 Fort Atkinson Bypass from consideration (saying it wouldn't be needed until at least 2035).
I just don't see the corner cut from Elkhorn to Whitewater happening. Yeah it can be busy on Summer weekends, but normally it's fine.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2020, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 28, 2020, 09:38:05 PM
I believe when this new exit opens, it will be numbered Exit 269. Eventually, all of US 12/18 from Interstate 39/90 to CTH-N (Exit 272) will be completely up to freeway standards. I wouldn't hold my breath on the freeway upgrades on the opposite end of the corridor happening for quite a while.
Also, and I have mentioned this before, I firmly believe that WisDOT made a major and ultimately EXPENSIVE mistake in not designing the I-90/94/US 12 interchange in Lake Delton (Wisconsin Dells area) to have the freeways being completly separate from the local surface traffic, like they are now doing at I-39/90/I-43/WI 81 in Beloit. As that major tourist area grows and develops, the wisdom of having a separate 'system' interchange there for the overhead through traffic between I-90/94 to/from the northwest and US 12 to/from the south will become more and more apparent.
--------
That could also be a good long-term endpoint for downgrading existing US 12 towards Minneapolis - "[US 12] follow [I-94]".
:nod:
Mike
That is not needed until US 12 becomes a full four lane corridor between the Dells and Madison. The next biggest priority needs to be a Sauk City bypass.
US 12 between Cambridge and Illinois is fine. It does not need any further four lane upgrades as most of the traffic is local.
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 30, 2020, 12:42:14 PM
Long term, if I was in charge of highway planning for Rock County (or, for that matter, WisDOT), I would be pushing for WisDOT take over County N between Newville and Whitewater as an extension of Hwy 20. It carries a large amount of inter-regional traffic (AADT of 5,000 to 7,500, thanks to UW-Whitewater). AADT of 8,500 on Hwy 59 just east of Newville drops to 3,500 at the intersection with County N. By comparison, parallel Hwy 59 only carries about 4,500-5,000 vpd.
Or switch 59 and CTH N.
59 goes straight to Whitewater and N drops down through Milton
WI-59 between Whitewater and Milton is busier than County N and should be a state highway. At least that's my anecdotal experience. An extension of WI-20 makes sense.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
WI-59 between Whitewater and Milton is busier than County N and should be a state highway. At least that's my anecdotal experience. An extension of WI-20 makes sense.
You may be right, but it always seems opposite for me. N always seems to carry the bulk of the traffic when I'm out that way. Seems like more people are interested in cutting over to I-90 than going to Milton.
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 01, 2020, 12:12:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
WI-59 between Whitewater and Milton is busier than County N and should be a state highway. At least that's my anecdotal experience. An extension of WI-20 makes sense.
You may be right, but it always seems opposite for me. N always seems to carry the bulk of the traffic when I'm out that way. Seems like more people are interested in cutting over to I-90 than going to Milton.
I always thought that N should be Wis 59 and the current 59 should be a Bus Wis 59.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 01, 2020, 07:17:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 01, 2020, 12:12:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
WI-59 between Whitewater and Milton is busier than County N and should be a state highway. At least that's my anecdotal experience. An extension of WI-20 makes sense.
You may be right, but it always seems opposite for me. N always seems to carry the bulk of the traffic when I'm out that way. Seems like more people are interested in cutting over to I-90 than going to Milton.
I always thought that N should be Wis 59 and the current 59 should be a Bus Wis 59.
An out-of-the-way 12 mile long business route for a 5000-person town is as Wisconsin as it gets. Open up a supper club serving grasshoppers and Brandy Alexanders on the edge of town and you've nailed it.
Quote from: skluth on September 01, 2020, 08:16:22 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 01, 2020, 07:17:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 01, 2020, 12:12:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
WI-59 between Whitewater and Milton is busier than County N and should be a state highway. At least that's my anecdotal experience. An extension of WI-20 makes sense.
You may be right, but it always seems opposite for me. N always seems to carry the bulk of the traffic when I'm out that way. Seems like more people are interested in cutting over to I-90 than going to Milton.
I always thought that N should be Wis 59 and the current 59 should be a Bus Wis 59.
An out-of-the-way 12 mile long business route for a 5000-person town is as Wisconsin as it gets. Open up a supper club serving grasshoppers and Brandy Alexanders on the edge of town and you've nailed it.
Yes. And? Problem? There is nothing that states a Business Route can't be more than 10 miles. If it did happen, you would at least keep the local businesses happy.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 01, 2020, 07:17:44 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on September 01, 2020, 12:12:37 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 31, 2020, 12:20:27 PM
WI-59 between Whitewater and Milton is busier than County N and should be a state highway. At least that's my anecdotal experience. An extension of WI-20 makes sense.
You may be right, but it always seems opposite for me. N always seems to carry the bulk of the traffic when I'm out that way. Seems like more people are interested in cutting over to I-90 than going to Milton.
I always thought that N should be Wis 59 and the current 59 should be a Bus Wis 59.
I would...
Keep WI-59 on its current route ending at WI-26 in Milton.
Extend WI-20 over US-12, taking over Rock County N and WI-59 westward.
Turn WI-59 between County N (extended WI-20) and Milton into an extension of Rock County Y.
Explore turning over WI-59 (extended WI-20) between US-14 and WI-11 to the various counties.
Quote from: skluth on September 01, 2020, 08:16:22 PM
An out-of-the-way 12 mile long business route for a 5000-person town is as Wisconsin as it gets. Open up a supper club serving grasshoppers and Brandy Alexanders on the edge of town and you've nailed it.
Naw man, brandy old fashions. That's our unofficial state cocktail. ;)
CTH-N is definitely the preferred route between the Interstate and Whitewater, but at what point do you draw the line and say that a community (in this case Milton) is big enough to warrant the state highway taking a detour? Milton is just over 1/3 the size of Whitewater. Anything more than that, and I would say the detour is justified, but as it stands I would swap WI-59 and CTH-N.
Quote from: thspfc on September 03, 2020, 09:38:30 PM
CTH-N is definitely the preferred route between the Interstate and Whitewater, but at what point do you draw the line and say that a community (in this case Milton) is big enough to warrant the state highway taking a detour? Milton is just over 1/3 the size of Whitewater. Anything more than that, and I would say the detour is justified, but as it stands I would swap WI-59 and CTH-N.
Couple of things. It's not just about the City of Milton. Milton and Janesville have pretty much grown together so it is also about serving traffic that goes to that entire region.
Also WI-59 is a perfectly worthy state highway between Whitewater and Milton. It has plenty of traffic and definitely serves a purpose. WIDOT isn't going to remove it from the state highway system, nor should they. County N is also a candidate to be a state highway. But it doesn't have to be a choice between the two.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 04, 2020, 08:32:43 AM
Quote from: thspfc on September 03, 2020, 09:38:30 PM
CTH-N is definitely the preferred route between the Interstate and Whitewater, but at what point do you draw the line and say that a community (in this case Milton) is big enough to warrant the state highway taking a detour? Milton is just over 1/3 the size of Whitewater. Anything more than that, and I would say the detour is justified, but as it stands I would swap WI-59 and CTH-N.
Couple of things. It's not just about the City of Milton. Milton and Janesville have pretty much grown together so it is also about serving traffic that goes to that entire region.
Also WI-59 is a perfectly worthy state highway between Whitewater and Milton. It has plenty of traffic and definitely serves a purpose. WIDOT isn't going to remove it from the state highway system, nor should they. County N is also a candidate to be a state highway. But it doesn't have to be a choice between the two.
In that case, WI-59 between Whitewater and WI-26 could become an extension of WI-20.
Getting back to US 12, how is the realignment coming along at County C?
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 03, 2020, 08:28:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 01, 2020, 08:16:22 PM
An out-of-the-way 12 mile long business route for a 5000-person town is as Wisconsin as it gets. Open up a supper club serving grasshoppers and Brandy Alexanders on the edge of town and you've nailed it.
Naw man, brandy old fashions. That's our unofficial state cocktail. ;)
I know. I grew up in Green Bay. I've enjoyed many a brandy old-fashioned at basement parties. But my mom would order a Brandy Alexander or two every time we went out for dinner at a supper club, so I associate sweet, creamy drinks with supper clubs.
Quote from: I-39 on August 31, 2020, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2020, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 28, 2020, 09:38:05 PM
I believe when this new exit opens, it will be numbered Exit 269. Eventually, all of US 12/18 from Interstate 39/90 to CTH-N (Exit 272) will be completely up to freeway standards. I wouldn't hold my breath on the freeway upgrades on the opposite end of the corridor happening for quite a while.
Also, and I have mentioned this before, I firmly believe that WisDOT made a major and ultimately EXPENSIVE mistake in not designing the I-90/94/US 12 interchange in Lake Delton (Wisconsin Dells area) to have the freeways being completly separate from the local surface traffic, like they are now doing at I-39/90/I-43/WI 81 in Beloit. As that major tourist area grows and develops, the wisdom of having a separate 'system' interchange there for the overhead through traffic between I-90/94 to/from the northwest and US 12 to/from the south will become more and more apparent.
--------
That could also be a good long-term endpoint for downgrading existing US 12 towards Minneapolis - "[US 12] follow [I-94]".
:nod:
Mike
That is not needed until US 12 becomes a full four lane corridor between the Dells and Madison. The next biggest priority needs to be a Sauk City bypass.
US 12 between Cambridge and Illinois is fine. It does not need any further four lane upgrades as most of the traffic is local.
If US 12 follows I-94, what follows the former US 12? The Alphabet???
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 06, 2020, 07:23:49 PM
If US 12 follows I-94, what follows the former US 12? The Alphabet???
Some of it, yea, especially parts that are northwest of Tomah. The part from Wisconsin Dells to Tomah is duplexed with WI 16, other sections are duplexed with WI 27 and WI 29, etc, so they would remain state highways. I can also see the part from WI 23 through Baraboo being renumbered as a state highway.
Mike
Some of those stretches that parallel I-94 are surprisingly busy with local traffic.
Quote from: I-39 on September 04, 2020, 01:14:11 PM
Getting back to US 12, how is the realignment coming along at County C?
The northern half of the new alignment is open on the new westbound lanes. The southern portion has a lot higher grade than the original. Concrete is being used to pave the new alignment.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 08, 2020, 01:27:33 AM
Quote from: I-39 on September 04, 2020, 01:14:11 PM
Getting back to US 12, how is the realignment coming along at County C?
The northern half of the new alignment is open on the new westbound lanes. The southern portion has a lot higher grade than the original. Concrete is being used to pave the new alignment.
A week ago, it looked damn close to being flipped to two-way traffic on the southbound lanes while the southern portion of the northbound lanes are rebuilt. Very possible that's already taken place - they have 3 months to get this done before winter weather takes hold.
WisDOT clearly designed this realignment with the intent to incorporate it as part of an eventual modern expressway/freeway rebuild of US-12 in the area - thus the rebuild with concrete. Other sections were merely resurfaced - the stretch through the bluffs south of Baraboo, for instance. The pavement was in bad shape and wouldn't hold up long enough for funding to come in to rebuild that correctly.
I'll be surprised if WisDOT doesn't come back in a few years to level and realign the grade, but that's an expensive undertaking with a lot of rock removal. There's bigger issues to fix first - namely, the 2-lane stretch west of Sauk City (and the pending Sauk City bypass).
The realignment is already shown on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3543845,-89.7659485,1296m/data=!3m1!1e3. The Street View image on US 12 is from September 2019, so we'll have to wait for that to be updated.
I've been spending a lot of time lately on US-12 from the Elkhorn to Fort Atkinson corridor. I can see the need for the Whitewater bypass, however I don't really see the need for any further improvements. Maybe a Ft. Atkinson bypass, but traffic there really just isn't that heavy. With the 70MPH speed limit on I-43 and I-39/90 along with the upgraded WI-26, US-12 is more of a regional road these days.
I lived in the area, three blocks off of US-12, for 20 years and I agree with you 100%. The Whitewater bypass was needed mostly because the entire city lies along Main Street (former US-12), and when the University is busy it causes a lot of traffic on the west side of town.
In Fort Atkinson, that's not the case. Historically, WI-26 was the busier route through town, and business is spread around a bit more.
And not to mention that, outside of some summer weekends, almost all of the traffic along that corridor is local.
Quote from: Crash_It on April 02, 2020, 11:59:27 AM
They need to resurface it through Walworth county first. Absolute worst road I've driven on.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 30, 2020, 12:38:28 PM
They do need to rebuild the freeway from Lake Geneva to Elkhorn. That road is atrocious. Not add more lanes but just repave it.
I have to agree with this assessment. The road, at least from WI-50 to Elkhorn, has definitely seen better days. Is there any repaving on the horizon?
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 13, 2020, 04:53:18 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on April 02, 2020, 11:59:27 AM
They need to resurface it through Walworth county first. Absolute worst road I've driven on.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 30, 2020, 12:38:28 PM
They do need to rebuild the freeway from Lake Geneva to Elkhorn. That road is atrocious. Not add more lanes but just repave it.
I have to agree with this assessment. The road, at least from WI-50 to Elkhorn, has definitely seen better days. Is there any repaving on the horizon?
Per this document, 2022:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/proj-info/sermap.pdf
There should be a roundabout at the Hwy 12, 20, and 67 intersection. If you are trying to get onto 12 West from either 20 or 67, it's awkward because you better hope there's nobody speeding when you try to enter it.
A roundabout might work here, but what would you do with US 12's bypass of the WIS 20/WIS 67 intersection?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 14, 2020, 05:44:13 PM
A roundabout might work here, but what would you do with US 12's bypass of the WIS 20/WIS 67 intersection?
Remove it, have US12 go around the circle.
Mike
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
Yup. Kind of like they did at WI-113 and WI-19 just east of Waunakee.
Bing maps still shows the old layout where Google has the current.
Another place I'd like to see a rural roundabout is the US 51/STH 22/STH 60 intersection in Arlington: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3312502,-89.326249,515m/data=!3m1!1e3.
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 13, 2020, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 13, 2020, 04:53:18 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on April 02, 2020, 11:59:27 AM
They need to resurface it through Walworth county first. Absolute worst road I've driven on.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 30, 2020, 12:38:28 PM
They do need to rebuild the freeway from Lake Geneva to Elkhorn. That road is atrocious. Not add more lanes but just repave it.
I have to agree with this assessment. The road, at least from WI-50 to Elkhorn, has definitely seen better days. Is there any repaving on the horizon?
Per this document, 2022:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/proj-info/sermap.pdf
That is good news. Thanks for finding that.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2020, 05:30:48 PM
Another place I'd like to see a rural roundabout is the US 51/STH 22/STH 60 intersection in Arlington: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3312502,-89.326249,515m/data=!3m1!1e3.
There are actually plans to build one there in 2022. https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/wis22wis60us51/default.aspx
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2020, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
You have to slow down anyways to make the turn at the infamous US-12/WI-20/WI-67 intersection. A roundabout would actually speed up the process. I think it's a fine idea to put one there.
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2020, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2020, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
You have to slow down anyways to make the turn at the infamous US-12/WI-20/WI-67 intersection. A roundabout would actually speed up the process. I think it's a fine idea to put one there.
If you are going through on US-12 it's definitely going to slow the process down. But it will be much safer than the odd angle intersections that exist currently.
Quote from: jwags on September 16, 2020, 08:44:32 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2020, 05:30:48 PM
Another place I'd like to see a rural roundabout is the US 51/STH 22/STH 60 intersection in Arlington: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3312502,-89.326249,515m/data=!3m1!1e3.
There are actually plans to build one there in 2022. https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/wis22wis60us51/default.aspx
The problem I see is which route 22 or 60 do you prioritize to get the roundabout? I would argue that 22 is the one that should get it because of the amount of traffic that waits to turn south on 51.
I had no idea they actually were going to put a roundabout at the US 51/STH 22/STH 60 intersection (and I scan the DOT website frequently). Thanks for pointing that out, jwags.
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2020, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2020, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
You have to slow down anyways to make the turn at the infamous US-12/WI-20/WI-67 intersection. A roundabout would actually speed up the process. I think it's a fine idea to put one there.
Ok but I am referring to intersections that were once 2 way stops for the cross traffic. Like the one I mentioned earlier on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville. You never had to slow down at all before.
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2020, 10:14:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2020, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2020, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
You have to slow down anyways to make the turn at the infamous US-12/WI-20/WI-67 intersection. A roundabout would actually speed up the process. I think it's a fine idea to put one there.
Ok but I am referring to intersections that were once 2 way stops for the cross traffic. Like the one I mentioned earlier on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville. You never had to slow down at all before.
But that's not really an example of a high speed rural roundabout.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 19, 2020, 07:15:03 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2020, 10:14:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2020, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2020, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
You have to slow down anyways to make the turn at the infamous US-12/WI-20/WI-67 intersection. A roundabout would actually speed up the process. I think it's a fine idea to put one there.
Ok but I am referring to intersections that were once 2 way stops for the cross traffic. Like the one I mentioned earlier on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville. You never had to slow down at all before.
But that's not really an example of a high speed rural roundabout.
I was annoyed by the roundabout at US 10 and WI 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2123955,-88.1544584,859m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) several years ago. But I didn't mind so much because I was going to Chilton on WI 57 which was formerly a full stop. I imagine US 10 traffic from the Fox Cities to Manitowoc/ Two Rivers weren't too thrilled although Forest Junction has built up some in the years since the roundabout was built so it looks less rural these days.
Quote from: skluth on September 19, 2020, 02:03:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 19, 2020, 07:15:03 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2020, 10:14:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2020, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2020, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
You have to slow down anyways to make the turn at the infamous US-12/WI-20/WI-67 intersection. A roundabout would actually speed up the process. I think it's a fine idea to put one there.
Ok but I am referring to intersections that were once 2 way stops for the cross traffic. Like the one I mentioned earlier on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville. You never had to slow down at all before.
But that's not really an example of a high speed rural roundabout.
I was annoyed by the roundabout at US 10 and WI 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2123955,-88.1544584,859m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) several years ago. But I didn't mind so much because I was going to Chilton on WI 57 which was formerly a full stop. I imagine US 10 traffic from the Fox Cities to Manitowoc/ Two Rivers weren't too thrilled although Forest Junction has built up some in the years since the roundabout was built so it looks less rural these days.
That's a great example of one that works pretty well. Honestly, dvferyance just doesn't like roundabouts period so he's going to complain regardless.
I used to drive from Brillion to Appleton and I liked the light better than the roundabout simply because the light was almost always green for US 10 traffic. Wis 57 had to stop as it was red until a vehicle approached. I can see Wis 57 traffic liking the roundabout better since it was almost a guaranteed stop unless there was a car ahead.
Coincidentally both Wis 57 and US 10 have 2 additional roundabouts each to the north and west.
Quote from: skluth on September 19, 2020, 02:03:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 19, 2020, 07:15:03 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 18, 2020, 10:14:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2020, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 16, 2020, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 15, 2020, 11:47:41 AM
Not a huge believer in rural roundabouts, but that is as good a place as any for one.
There is not a place for roundabouts I hate more than on high speed roads. What is the point of having a road made for speed if you have to keep slowing down all the time to go through roundabouts? The roundabout on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville is the biggest pain ever.
You have to slow down anyways to make the turn at the infamous US-12/WI-20/WI-67 intersection. A roundabout would actually speed up the process. I think it's a fine idea to put one there.
Ok but I am referring to intersections that were once 2 way stops for the cross traffic. Like the one I mentioned earlier on Hwy 18 in Dodgeville. You never had to slow down at all before.
But that's not really an example of a high speed rural roundabout.
I was annoyed by the roundabout at US 10 and WI 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2123955,-88.1544584,859m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) several years ago. But I didn't mind so much because I was going to Chilton on WI 57 which was formerly a full stop. I imagine US 10 traffic from the Fox Cities to Manitowoc/ Two Rivers weren't too thrilled although Forest Junction has built up some in the years since the roundabout was built so it looks less rural these days.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2020, 02:27:12 AM
I used to drive from Brillion to Appleton and I liked the light better than the roundabout simply because the light was almost always green for US 10 traffic. Wis 57 had to stop as it was red until a vehicle approached. I can see Wis 57 traffic liking the roundabout better since it was almost a guaranteed stop unless there was a car ahead.
I didn't know there had been a stop light there. My family used to drive down to Chilton to visit my mom's sister at least monthly in the 60's and early 70's. At first, SB WI 57 traffic came into Forest Junction on Church St, and both WI 57 and US 10 were on the railroad overpass. I think it was late 70's or early 80's when WDOT moved WI 57 north of Forest Junction entirely west of the (now defunct) railroad to directly connect to the road south. WI 57 still had stop signs with US 10 having no stop; it had actually been easier crossing US 10 when you drove into town and only had right turns onto US 10. I'm guessing that's what prompted the light. I left Wisconsin after graduating from UWGB in 1987, so it had been over 25 years since I had passed through there. Both railroads (it was Forest "Junction") and the US 10 viaduct have long since gone.
You can see the old routing of WI 57 on this 1959 Calumet County map (http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/841996/Calumet+County+Map/).
I hate the long concurrency with WI 32 from De Pere to Kiel, but WDOT seems to like concurrencies more than any state but Georgia. I liked it better when WI 32 ran through Reedsville.
I think the WI-32 concurrency is about keeping it as a border to border highway considering is designation as the Red Arrow highway.
Quote from: skluth on September 22, 2020, 07:16:58 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2020, 02:27:12 AM
I used to drive from Brillion to Appleton and I liked the light better than the roundabout simply because the light was almost always green for US 10 traffic. Wis 57 had to stop as it was red until a vehicle approached. I can see Wis 57 traffic liking the roundabout better since it was almost a guaranteed stop unless there was a car ahead.
I didn't know there had been a stop light there. My family used to drive down to Chilton to visit my mom's sister at least monthly in the 60's and early 70's. At first, SB WI 57 traffic came into Forest Junction on Church St, and both WI 57 and US 10 were on the railroad overpass. I think it was late 70's or early 80's when WDOT moved WI 57 north of Forest Junction entirely west of the (now defunct) railroad to directly connect to the road south. WI 57 still had stop signs with US 10 having no stop; it had actually been easier crossing US 10 when you drove into town and only had right turns onto US 10. I'm guessing that's what prompted the light. I left Wisconsin after graduating from UWGB in 1987, so it had been over 25 years since I had passed through there. Both railroads (it was Forest "Junction") and the US 10 viaduct have long since gone.
You can see the old routing of WI 57 on this 1959 Calumet County map (http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/841996/Calumet+County+Map/).
I hate the long concurrency with WI 32 from De Pere to Kiel, but WDOT seems to like concurrencies more than any state but Georgia. I liked it better when WI 32 ran through Reedsville.
I would extend US-141 southward along WI-57 and WI-32 into Illinois. That solves the long concurrency. As a result WI-32 and WI-57 are truncated to Green Bay, and the little bits that would remain (current WI-32 from Millhome to Cedar Grove and current WI-57 from River Hills southward) become WI-132 (to reflect the old number and Red Arrow Highway) and WI-257, respectively.
Wis 32 will always go from border to border since it's the 32nd Division Memorial Highway. It once ended in Sheboygan where Wis 42 ends now while Wis 42 once ended at the Illinois border. The routes were swapped in 1951 when Wis 32 became a memorial highway. That's why there's the long concurrency with US 45 at it's north end. Here's more history linked below:
http://wisconsinhighways.org/listings/WiscHwys30-39.html#STH-032
Quote from: thspfc on September 23, 2020, 09:09:23 AM
Quote from: skluth on September 22, 2020, 07:16:58 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2020, 02:27:12 AM
I used to drive from Brillion to Appleton and I liked the light better than the roundabout simply because the light was almost always green for US 10 traffic. Wis 57 had to stop as it was red until a vehicle approached. I can see Wis 57 traffic liking the roundabout better since it was almost a guaranteed stop unless there was a car ahead.
I didn't know there had been a stop light there. My family used to drive down to Chilton to visit my mom's sister at least monthly in the 60's and early 70's. At first, SB WI 57 traffic came into Forest Junction on Church St, and both WI 57 and US 10 were on the railroad overpass. I think it was late 70's or early 80's when WDOT moved WI 57 north of Forest Junction entirely west of the (now defunct) railroad to directly connect to the road south. WI 57 still had stop signs with US 10 having no stop; it had actually been easier crossing US 10 when you drove into town and only had right turns onto US 10. I'm guessing that's what prompted the light. I left Wisconsin after graduating from UWGB in 1987, so it had been over 25 years since I had passed through there. Both railroads (it was Forest "Junction") and the US 10 viaduct have long since gone.
You can see the old routing of WI 57 on this 1959 Calumet County map (http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/841996/Calumet+County+Map/).
I hate the long concurrency with WI 32 from De Pere to Kiel, but WDOT seems to like concurrencies more than any state but Georgia. I liked it better when WI 32 ran through Reedsville.
I would extend US-141 southward along WI-57 and WI-32 into Illinois. That solves the long concurrency. As a result WI-32 and WI-57 are truncated to Green Bay, and the little bits that would remain (current WI-32 from Millhome to Cedar Grove and current WI-57 from River Hills southward) become WI-132 (to reflect the old number and Red Arrow Highway) and WI-257, respectively.
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 13, 2020, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 13, 2020, 04:53:18 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on April 02, 2020, 11:59:27 AM
They need to resurface it through Walworth county first. Absolute worst road I've driven on.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 30, 2020, 12:38:28 PM
They do need to rebuild the freeway from Lake Geneva to Elkhorn. That road is atrocious. Not add more lanes but just repave it.
I have to agree with this assessment. The road, at least from WI-50 to Elkhorn, has definitely seen better days. Is there any repaving on the horizon?
Per this document, 2022:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/proj-info/sermap.pdf
2022? You've gotta be freakin kidding! That road was in really bad shape in Nov 2018 the last time I drove it. That means it must be even worse now. No road in Illinois is deteriorated like that for that many miles, even Indiana repaired a similarly deteriorated stretch of US20 in 2018.
Quote from: Crash_It on September 24, 2020, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 13, 2020, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 13, 2020, 04:53:18 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on April 02, 2020, 11:59:27 AM
They need to resurface it through Walworth county first. Absolute worst road I've driven on.
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 30, 2020, 12:38:28 PM
They do need to rebuild the freeway from Lake Geneva to Elkhorn. That road is atrocious. Not add more lanes but just repave it.
I have to agree with this assessment. The road, at least from WI-50 to Elkhorn, has definitely seen better days. Is there any repaving on the horizon?
Per this document, 2022:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/proj-info/sermap.pdf
2022? You've gotta be freakin kidding! That road was in really bad shape in Nov 2018 the last time I drove it. That means it must be even worse now. No road in Illinois is deteriorated like that for that many miles, even Indiana repaired a similarly deteriorated stretch of US20 in 2018.
Well when you make the dumb decision to remove the inflation index from the gas tax...
US 12/WI 20/WI 67 is like WI 76/Outagamie County 'O' just north of Greenville, which was roundabouted about ten years ago. WI 76 takes a 90 degree turn there.
A couple of other places in the state where I would put 'rural' roundabouts, if they have not been done so, include at WI 13/WI 21 and WI 21/WI 49. Those are/were both all-way STOP sign controlled.
A few years ago WisDOT also installed one at US 45/WI 96 west of Appleton.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 24, 2020, 05:15:38 PM
US 12/WI 20/WI 67 is like WI 76/Outagamie County 'O' just north of Greenville, which was roundabouted about ten years ago. WI 76 takes a 90 degree turn there.
A couple of other places in the state where I would put 'rural' roundabouts, if they have not been done so, include at WI 13/WI 21 and WI 21/WI 49. Those are/were both all-way STOP sign controlled.
A few years ago WisDOT also installed one at US 45/WI 96 west of Appleton.
Mike
I think a roundabout could also be used at CTH-A/STH-33 and STH-67/STH-60 in Dodge County. Those intersections are both awful to drive through.
Quote from: jwags on September 25, 2020, 08:28:14 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 24, 2020, 05:15:38 PM
US 12/WI 20/WI 67 is like WI 76/Outagamie County 'O' just north of Greenville, which was roundabouted about ten years ago. WI 76 takes a 90 degree turn there.
A couple of other places in the state where I would put 'rural' roundabouts, if they have not been done so, include at WI 13/WI 21 and WI 21/WI 49. Those are/were both all-way STOP sign controlled.
A few years ago WisDOT also installed one at US 45/WI 96 west of Appleton.
Mike
I think a roundabout could also be used at CTH-A/STH-33 and STH-67/STH-60 in Dodge County. Those intersections are both awful to drive through.
The last time that I drove through the WI 33/Dodge County 'A' intersection, ISTR that the new concrete on County 'A' was set up to rebuild the intersection, perhaps as a roundabout, at a later time.
Mike
Saw this sign goof today. Kinda sums up my feeling about US 12 though! :-D
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2F12.jpg&hash=d8552ec34463d69de4d72be5fbf6c30a9b783dac)
Quote from: GeekJedi on October 01, 2020, 11:23:13 PM
Saw this sign goof today. Kinda sums up my feeling about US 12 though! :-D
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2F12.jpg&hash=d8552ec34463d69de4d72be5fbf6c30a9b783dac)
I don't know why, but I like the look of that WI-12 shield.
Historically, that STH 12 sign would have been accurate; from 1917-1926, that is. I once remember, a number of years ago, the reassurance markers along Stoughton Road has STH 51 (instead of US 51) signs along it. Also, one time when there was construction on the Beltline, there was a STH 18 sign along with a US 12 sign. The real STH 18 existed from Humbird to Manitowoc from 1917 to 1923, and from Prescott to Manitowoc from 1923 to 1926. That entire corridor is now part of US 10, although 10 has long since bypassed Humbird to the north, serving Fairchild instead.
Man, contractors fuck up the WI/US route markers just enough to make ya wonder if anyone gives a shit. Is Eagle, WI still the junction of US 59 and US 67? I remember that one.
But I guess that's what happens when you give out government contracts to the lowest bidder.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 03, 2020, 12:23:15 AM
Man, contractors fuck up the WI/US route markers just enough to make ya wonder if anyone gives a shit. Is Eagle, WI still the junction of US 59 and US 67? I remember that one.
But I guess that's what happens when you give out government contracts to the lowest bidder.
I think about 95% of the driving public doesn't know the difference between state and US highways or they don't care.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 03, 2020, 12:23:15 AM
Man, contractors fuck up the WI/US route markers just enough to make ya wonder if anyone gives a shit. Is Eagle, WI still the junction of US 59 and US 67? I remember that one.
But I guess that's what happens when you give out government contracts to the lowest bidder.
It said WIS59/WIS67 the last time I went through there in 2018.
While it is true that the vast majority of travelers don't care, it's simply inexcusable to make those types of mistakes. They should take some pride in their highways. The least they can do is not make blatant singage errors that could be pointed out by a five year old.
I went through Dodgeville last weekend and the signing errors with US 151 being demoted and WIS 191 being promoted have been fixed, so maybe somebody at WisDOT still cares a little.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 04, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
I went through Dodgeville last weekend and the signing errors with US 151 being demoted and WIS 191 being promoted have been fixed, so maybe somebody at WisDOT still cares a little.
There are plenty of errors elsewhere.
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 05, 2020, 07:57:12 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 04, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
I went through Dodgeville last weekend and the signing errors with US 151 being demoted and WIS 191 being promoted have been fixed, so maybe somebody at WisDOT still cares a little.
There are plenty of errors elsewhere.
I insist that there is a US-23 shield on WI-23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan, but I can't find it on GSV. There is also this debacle: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0087049,-88.0495885,3a,18.7y,106.28h,87.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1six4LlvS4o3T1r_StKdJYcQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
On CTH-M in Oconto County. The funniest part is that if you view the street view from 2008 instead of 2019, the shield is actually correct.
There once was a STH 141 in Wisconsin from 1923 to 1926; the highway went from STH (formerly US) 16 northwest of Fall River to STH 33 north of Cambria. The route is still a part of the state highway system, although it has been numbered STH 146 since 1926, in order to avoid route duplication with US 141.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2020, 02:27:12 AM
I used to drive from Brillion to Appleton and I liked the light better than the roundabout simply because the light was almost always green for US 10 traffic. Wis 57 had to stop as it was red until a vehicle approached. I can see Wis 57 traffic liking the roundabout better since it was almost a guaranteed stop unless there was a car ahead.
Coincidentally both Wis 57 and US 10 have 2 additional roundabouts each to the north and west.
The roundabouts were installed on that two-lane part of US 10 west of WI 32/57 in the 00s due to a number of VERY BAD crashes that happened at the prior intersections, particularly the one at WI 55. IIRC, that intersection might have been re-signed as a 4-way STOP in the decade or so before that one was built (I don't often travel that way).
I have heard of no problems at those intersections since.
(Note, if I had my way, the part of existing US 10 between Forest Junction (just east of WI 32/57) and WI 441 in Appleton would be bypassed on a combination of a 'Super-Two' freeway on a four-lane cross country new-ROW and an upgraded Outagamie County 'CE'.)
Mike
No pictures, but WisDOT contractors have all but about 1/4 mile of the NBD lanes completed on the S-curve rebuild between Sauk City and Baraboo. The remaining 1/4 mile is where the new pavement meets the existing pavement at the southern end. It carried 2-way traffic most of the summer while the other areas were realigned and rebuilt. They're now moving in fill to raise and slope the roadbed for the curve. It should be done within a couple weeks.
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 05, 2020, 07:57:12 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 04, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
I went through Dodgeville last weekend and the signing errors with US 151 being demoted and WIS 191 being promoted have been fixed, so maybe somebody at WisDOT still cares a little.
There are plenty of errors elsewhere.
Yep I found one last weekend in Adams County there is a US-82 shield on WI-82 just west of WI-13.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 16, 2020, 09:58:23 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 05, 2020, 07:57:12 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 04, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
I went through Dodgeville last weekend and the signing errors with US 151 being demoted and WIS 191 being promoted have been fixed, so maybe somebody at WisDOT still cares a little.
There are plenty of errors elsewhere.
Yep I found one last weekend in Adams County there is a US-82 shield on WI-82 just west of WI-13.
Been there at least almost a year. Like to make trips over the 82 bridge and US 82 signs were there end of 2019
Apparently there is a plan, or at least discussion on resurfacing Hwy 12 in Madison. That definitely needs it because that road is in poor shape.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-beltline/default.aspx
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 27, 2020, 12:39:16 PM
Apparently there is a plan, or at least discussion on resurfacing Hwy 12 in Madison. That definitely needs it because that road is in poor shape.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-beltline/default.aspx
The resurfacing of the Beltline was already completed this past summer. The project to allow part time shoulder running is supposed to happen next year.
Is the Bluffview project over in Sauk County finished? And if it is, does anybody have any pictures of it?
Google Maps has been updated to show the new configuration (although not the terrain on Satellite Mode): https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3527356,-89.7631812,1681m/data=!3m1!1e3. I'm afraid that is the best I can do.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 04, 2020, 09:37:46 PM
Google Maps has been updated to show the new configuration (although not the terrain on Satellite Mode): https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3527356,-89.7631812,1681m/data=!3m1!1e3. I'm afraid that is the best I can do.
That imagery is pretty out of date. It still doesn't show the southern half of the Baraboo bypass.
Quote from: US 12 fan on December 04, 2020, 07:37:32 PM
Is the Bluffview project over in Sauk County finished? And if it is, does anybody have any pictures of it?
https://twitter.com/wisdotsouthwest/status/1336012108459282432?s=21
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 27, 2020, 09:44:37 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on November 27, 2020, 12:39:16 PM
Apparently there is a plan, or at least discussion on resurfacing Hwy 12 in Madison. That definitely needs it because that road is in poor shape.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-beltline/default.aspx
The resurfacing of the Beltline was already completed this past summer. The project to allow part time shoulder running is supposed to happen next year.
The surface last year was the 1st layer. There's supposed to be another layer along with badly needed ramp repairs next year along with the shoulder lanes. I emailed the SW Region to complain about how awful the Todd Dr and Fish Hatchery Rd were. They said they will be fixed along with another resurfacing.
Quote from: peterj920 on December 07, 2020, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on December 04, 2020, 07:37:32 PM
Is the Bluffview project over in Sauk County finished? And if it is, does anybody have any pictures of it?
https://twitter.com/wisdotsouthwest/status/1336012108459282432?s=21
Looks excellent. The only thing that would've been better is if they reconstructed the pavement north and south of that section to bring it up to par with the newer pavement on the Baraboo bypass.
Two comments about the S Curve reconstruction:
I'm not sure I understand why US 12 was elevated so much. Both carriageways were elevated as a unit instead of independently. This project used a lot of fill.
Speed limits remain 55 mph. Considering the relatively few intersections and driveways south of Ski-hi Road, I would think it would be considered for a 65 mph upgrade–unless the narrow median over Stevens Pass drove that decision.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on December 26, 2020, 06:30:09 AM
Two comments about the S Curve reconstruction:
I'm not sure I understand why US 12 was elevated so much. Both carriageways were elevated as a unit instead of independently. This project used a lot of fill.
Speed limits remain 55 mph. Considering the relatively few intersections and driveways south of Ski-hi Road, I would think it would be considered for a 65 mph upgrade–unless the narrow median over Stevens Pass drove that decision.
Bigger thing is why didn't they fully reconstruct the pavement to the north and south of the project to match the improvements. If satellite images are correct, that pavement dates back to the 1950s.
The divided highway was constructed for the Ordnance Plant during WWII with concrete pavement. In the "˜80s the original concrete and blacktop overlays were "rubble-ized" (and removed) and replaced with a bituminous pavement. We will see how long the overlay from 2019 lasts north and south of the S Curve project. It certainly was a relief to have that done at least. While the wheel tracks were extremely pothole-ridden, they could be avoided by shifting your vehicle slightly, if you weren't driving a large vehicle. Funny how many people didn't notice that and chose to drive through the potholes.
Maybe they're awaiting a full reconstruction until a decision is made about the Sauk City bypass. However, I don't see that happening for at least 20 years.
Yeah I don't know what the plans are for a Sauk bypass, but it's going to be difficult for them to accquire the ROW, especially between CTH-Y and WI-60.
Quote from: thspfc on December 26, 2020, 02:42:25 PM
Yeah I don't know what the plans are for a Sauk bypass, but it's going to be difficult for them to accquire the ROW, especially between CTH-Y and WI-60.
I saw some several decades old maps a few years ago that showed a bypass freeway being routed around the citys' south and west side. I wonder if that routing is still valid.
Mike
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on December 26, 2020, 09:49:03 AM
The divided highway was constructed for the Ordnance Plant during WWII with concrete pavement. In the "˜80s the original concrete and blacktop overlays were "rubble-ized" (and removed) and replaced with a bituminous pavement. We will see how long the overlay from 2019 lasts north and south of the S Curve project. It certainly was a relief to have that done at least. While the wheel tracks were extremely pothole-ridden, they could be avoided by shifting your vehicle slightly, if you weren't driving a large vehicle. Funny how many people didn't notice that and chose to drive through the potholes.
Maybe they're awaiting a full reconstruction until a decision is made about the Sauk City bypass. However, I don't see that happening for at least 20 years.
South of the project area, I could definitely see the case for waiting, but north of the project area to Ski Hi Road they should've just rebuilt the pavement entirely to match the new Baraboo bypass.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on December 26, 2020, 06:30:09 AM
Speed limits remain 55 mph. Considering the relatively few intersections and driveways south of Ski-hi Road, I would think it would be considered for a 65 mph upgrade–unless the narrow median over Stevens Pass drove that decision.
In my amateur assessment, the curves through the South Range of the Baraboo Hills don't support a 65 SL. The curves are just sharp enough and with no physical barrier between the carriageways in that narrow median, it's probably the right move to end the 65 where it does.
As to why the project wasn't more extensive to upgrade the rest of the old four lane, I think you all know the answer to that:
$$$
They got the crummiest part fixed up, so that'll have to do for the intermediate future.
For those inquiring on a possible Sauk City Bypass, here is a PDF on possible alignments from 2005 (the Near South Bypass Alternative being the preferred one): http://www.vandewalle.com/work/sauk/final/Map%2012.pdf.
Also, here is a story from 2014 about a potential Sauk City Bypass: https://www.wiscnews.com/saukprairieeagle/news/local/sauk-city-hwy-12-bypass-on-backburner/article_40e5d568-5e2f-5c96-8799-be62e0823d1c.html. I doubt anything has changed since then, or will change anytime soon.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2020, 04:48:12 PM
For those inquiring on a possible Sauk City Bypass, here is a PDF on possible alignments from 2005 (the Near South Bypass Alternative being the preferred one): http://www.vandewalle.com/work/sauk/final/Map%2012.pdf.
Also, here is a story from 2014 about a potential Sauk City Bypass: https://www.wiscnews.com/saukprairieeagle/news/local/sauk-city-hwy-12-bypass-on-backburner/article_40e5d568-5e2f-5c96-8799-be62e0823d1c.html. I doubt anything has changed since then, or will change anytime soon.
Can't they just do an quick 4 laneing of the rest of the 2 lane parts?
Maybe, but it would require undertaking a study, approving the project, funding it, and then constructing the project. That takes many years, and much political wrangling to accomplish. Not to mention potential opposition from special interest groups and NIMBYs.
Here is an article from May that may give some hints to what may happen in the near future for Highway 12.
https://www.hngnews.com/cambridge_deerfield/article_3866c325-34aa-561a-8878-bbf21a088a24.html
More details should be mentioned in the Connect 2050 website in the fall.
https://connect2050.wisconsindot.gov/
Quote from: US 12 fan on August 29, 2021, 11:47:05 AM
Here is an article from May that may give some hints to what may happen in the near future for Highway 12.
https://www.hngnews.com/cambridge_deerfield/article_3866c325-34aa-561a-8878-bbf21a088a24.html
More details should be mentioned in the Connect 2050 website in the fall.
https://connect2050.wisconsindot.gov/
What a terrible article:
"The DOT has long eyed making all of Highway 12 four lanes between Madison and Lake Geneva, and potentially bypassing Cambridge and Fort Atkinson."
This isn't really accurate. They may have once wanted to do that, but expanding US-12 to four lanes hasn't been a major priority for decades now.
"Today, portions of Highway 12 are four lanes in the Whitewater and Lake Geneva areas. But it remains two lanes from Cottage Grove past Fort Atkinson."
Not only does US-12 not go to Cottage Grove, but there are no four lane portions between Dane County N and Elkhorn. Where are the four lane portions near Whitewater???
"There have been signs, over years, that the DOT's four-lane vision persists.
The seemingly oversized U.S. Highway 12-18 and State Highway 73 interchange at Deerfield, completed in 2015, was a significant reminder."
That interchange is not in anyway "oversized." The bridge carrying US-12/18 would have to be replaced with any expansion, and the exit ramps are simple and short. It was put in place to get rid of the left turn movements from WI-73, which were not only dangerous, but causing big back ups.
The author is looking for something that isn't there. Even WIDOT's look at US-12 between County N and Cambridge doesn't include expansion to four lanes.
There is no longer any need for further four lane US 12 upgrades between Illinois and Madison. That shipped sailed when Illinois dropped plans for FAP 420.
The only remaking thing needed is a Sauk City bypass and making the entire US 12 corridor between Madison and the Dells a freeway. Neither is going to happen anytime soon though.
Quote from: I-39 on August 29, 2021, 10:24:21 PM
There is no longer any need for further four lane US 12 upgrades between Illinois and Madison. That shipped sailed when Illinois dropped plans for FAP 420.
The only remaking thing needed is a Sauk City bypass and making the entire US 12 corridor between Madison and the Dells a freeway. Neither is going to happen anytime soon though.
Well the Beltline still sucks, so there's that.
An interchange at CTH-K in Middleton is needed. An interchange at Springfield Corners would be nice but I can't imagine that ever happening, not within the next 30-40 years anyways.
I don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
By the end of the decade, the signals at CTH K and Springfield will be replaced by interchanges. I'm calling it.
Also, Sauk City bypass will be at least under construction, if not, done.
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:28:14 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 29, 2021, 10:24:21 PM
The only remaking thing needed is a Sauk City bypass and making the entire US 12 corridor between Madison and the Dells a freeway. Neither is going to happen anytime soon though.
An interchange at CTH-K in Middleton is needed. An interchange at Springfield Corners would be nice but I can't imagine that ever happening, not within the next 30-40 years anyways.
I don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
First priority should be to eliminate all the stoplights between Middleton and Hwy 78 near Prairie du Sac, replacing all stoplights with interchanges (starting with CTH-K). Completing the 4-laning between the Dells and Middleton, removing the remaining stoplights in the process, should be the next priority. Down the road, the section climbing the bluffs south of Baraboo should be widened and rebuilt to interstate standards. Then, as traffic demands, replace all intersections with overpasses or interchanges as traffic dictates.
Completion of 4-laning should be completed before WisDOT starts the planned rebuild/widening of I-39/90/94 between Madison and Portage. That would allow US-12 to take the edge off traffic issues caused by the I-39/90/94 widening work.
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:28:14 PMI don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
If the rest of the corridor is, then yes it will. And that would probably be the easiest segment to upgrade.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2021, 11:01:47 PM
Also, Sauk City bypass will be at least under construction, if not, done.
Yeah right. Considering there isn't even a study opened right now, it'll be 15-20 years minimum before any construction materializes there.
Four-laning US-12/18 from County N to Cambridge may make sense eventually too. But the thing is this is not because US-12 is some type of "through corridor," but because of Madison commuter traffic. This is why, despite the fact that it is mapped, we aren't going to see a bypass of Fort Atkinson anytime soon, nor will we see a "cut the corner" from Whitewater to Elkhorn.
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 08:40:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:28:14 PMI don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
If the rest of the corridor is, then yes it will. And that would probably be the easiest segment to upgrade.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2021, 11:01:47 PM
Also, Sauk City bypass will be at least under construction, if not, done.
Yeah right. Considering there isn't even a study opened right now, it'll be 15-20 years minimum before any construction materializes there.
sauk city can have an quick thing done to fill in the 4 lane gap.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 30, 2021, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 08:40:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:28:14 PMI don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
If the rest of the corridor is, then yes it will. And that would probably be the easiest segment to upgrade.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2021, 11:01:47 PM
Also, Sauk City bypass will be at least under construction, if not, done.
Yeah right. Considering there isn't even a study opened right now, it'll be 15-20 years minimum before any construction materializes there.
sauk city can have an quick thing done to fill in the 4 lane gap.
No, it will require an expensive crossing over the Wisconsin River.
Quote from: I-39 on August 29, 2021, 10:24:21 PM
There is no longer any need for further four lane US 12 upgrades between Illinois and Madison. That shipped sailed when Illinois dropped plans for FAP 420.
The only remaking thing needed is a Sauk City bypass and making the entire US 12 corridor between Madison and the Dells a freeway. Neither is going to happen anytime soon though.
Disagree:
1) There is the higher quality WI 50 connection to the Kenosha area.
2) There's still a lot of traffic using the subpar parts of US 12 in Illinois to Wisconsin.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 30, 2021, 10:28:09 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 29, 2021, 10:24:21 PM
There is no longer any need for further four lane US 12 upgrades between Illinois and Madison. That shipped sailed when Illinois dropped plans for FAP 420.
The only remaking thing needed is a Sauk City bypass and making the entire US 12 corridor between Madison and the Dells a freeway. Neither is going to happen anytime soon though.
Disagree:
1) There is the higher quality WI 50 connection to the Kenosha area.
2) There's still a lot of traffic using the subpar parts of US 12 in Illinois to Wisconsin.
I don't really agree with #2. Having lived just off one of the "subpar parts of US-12 in Wisconsin" for many years, you would see *some* Illinois plates and increase in traffic on summer weekends, but it hardly enough to cause significant issues. For instance, the traffic in downtown Fort Atkinson would still be less than what a normal weekday commute would see.
I guess it depends on your definition of "a lot."
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 30, 2021, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 08:40:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:28:14 PMI don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
If the rest of the corridor is, then yes it will. And that would probably be the easiest segment to upgrade.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2021, 11:01:47 PM
Also, Sauk City bypass will be at least under construction, if not, done.
Yeah right. Considering there isn't even a study opened right now, it'll be 15-20 years minimum before any construction materializes there.
sauk city can have an quick thing done to fill in the 4 lane gap.
No, it will require an expensive crossing over the Wisconsin River.
looks to be 4 lanes now
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 31, 2021, 12:20:43 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 30, 2021, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 08:40:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:28:14 PMI don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
If the rest of the corridor is, then yes it will. And that would probably be the easiest segment to upgrade.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2021, 11:01:47 PM
Also, Sauk City bypass will be at least under construction, if not, done.
Yeah right. Considering there isn't even a study opened right now, it'll be 15-20 years minimum before any construction materializes there.
sauk city can have an quick thing done to fill in the 4 lane gap.
No, it will require an expensive crossing over the Wisconsin River.
looks to be 4 lanes now
But it is not freeway/expressway grade. That will require a bypass, which there are no plans for at the moment.
Quote from: I-39 on August 31, 2021, 11:06:29 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 31, 2021, 12:20:43 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 30, 2021, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on August 30, 2021, 08:40:36 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:28:14 PMI don't think it has to be a freeway between Prairie du Sac and Baraboo though.
If the rest of the corridor is, then yes it will. And that would probably be the easiest segment to upgrade.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2021, 11:01:47 PM
Also, Sauk City bypass will be at least under construction, if not, done.
Yeah right. Considering there isn't even a study opened right now, it'll be 15-20 years minimum before any construction materializes there.
sauk city can have an quick thing done to fill in the 4 lane gap.
No, it will require an expensive crossing over the Wisconsin River.
looks to be 4 lanes now
But it is not freeway/expressway grade. That will require a bypass, which there are no plans for at the moment.
And, without that freeway grade bridge over the Wisconsin River, there is no point in upgrading anything else. All further 4-laning would do is pull traffic that would've taken I-39/90/94 instead and cause more accidents in Prairie du Sac. Once that bridge is built, then it's a no-brainer to bring the existing 2/4 lane up to modern WisDOT expressway standards (with provision to convert to freeway later).
There's a general lack of expressway/freeway connectivity between the communities south of Milwaukee along I-94 and communities along I-39/90. Obviously, Madison is directly connected to Milwaukee, but any freeway connection to Racine or Kenosha requires driving through Milwaukee. Janesville has no direct freeway/expressway connection eastward. Beloit technically has an all freeway/expressway route, but it requires a couple of turns along the way.
Is such a connection warranted? I think so. Judging by the high level of traffic on County N, County A, and US-14 in Rock County, I could see a future need for one or two expressway segments. Frankly, US-14 is ready for it now, but there's not a sufficiently loud, vocal demand to make it happen. County N is very busy for a county road and frankly should be adopted by WisDOT as an extension of Hwy 20, but passing lanes and other modernization will keep it safe as a 2-lane for another 20-30 years.
I could see WisDOT making expressway-grade connections between Newville and Whitewater, and between Janesville and Darien, but leaving US-12 as 2-lane through Cambridge and Fort Atkinson, based on traffic demands.
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
I could see WisDOT making expressway-grade connections between Newville and Whitewater, and between Janesville and Darien, but leaving US-12 as 2-lane through Cambridge and Fort Atkinson, based on traffic demands.
I can see your point about County N and WI-59 between Whitewater and Newville. I do think that when they did the Fort Atkinson south bypass study, a relocated US-12 (or at least an improvement along that corridor) was one of the options.
But I think a four lane expressway is a long ways off.
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
There's a general lack of expressway/freeway connectivity between the communities south of Milwaukee along I-94 and communities along I-39/90.
And that's ok. Existing highways are sufficient. Not every corner of every area needs freeway/expressway grade highways. Lake County IL is heavily populated and survives without an E/W freeway.
WisDOT is going to have a lot of expense maintaining all the new freeway/expressway grade highways built in the last three decades. They need to focus on rebuilding and improving their interstates before anything.
Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2021, 09:59:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
There's a general lack of expressway/freeway connectivity between the communities south of Milwaukee along I-94 and communities along I-39/90.
And that's ok. Existing highways are sufficient. Not every corner of every area needs freeway/expressway grade highways.
It's not okay. An area the size of Chicagoland, plus the decent sized cities of Kenosha and Racine should have more access. Having only I-90 and I-94 coming in from the north and northwest is insufficient. There should be another option into the southeastern part of the state that avoids Milwaukee.
Additionally, US 14 between I-43 and Janesville is an unpleasant overloaded road on and is unlikely to have a good safety record. It certainly could use a good evaluation for conversion to an expressway.
Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2021, 09:59:16 PMLake County IL is heavily populated and survives suffers without an E/W freeway.
FTFY. East-west travel across Lake County, IL is rather unpleasant and much more time consuming than it should be with way too many stoplights, railroad crossings, and/or slow crawls through business districts.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 01, 2021, 10:59:08 PM
Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2021, 09:59:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
There's a general lack of expressway/freeway connectivity between the communities south of Milwaukee along I-94 and communities along I-39/90.
And that's ok. Existing highways are sufficient. Not every corner of every area needs freeway/expressway grade highways.
It's not okay. An area the size of Chicagoland, plus the decent sized cities of Kenosha and Racine should have more access. Having only I-90 and I-94 coming in from the north and northwest is insufficient. There should be another option into the southeastern part of the state that avoids Milwaukee.
Additionally, US 14 between I-43 and Janesville is an unpleasant overloaded road on and is unlikely to have a good safety record. It certainly could use a good evaluation for conversion to an expressway.
A 4-laned US-14 east of Janesville would solve most of the problem. Besides serving as a 2nd expressway/freeway link to Milwaukee, it would address the existing heavy traffic on this stretch. The intersection with Hwy 140 has had several significant wrecks over the years, and the vast majority of the traffic at the Hwy 11 and Hwy 89 intersection is traffic following US-14.
If one wants to go to Milwaukee from Janesville, WI-26 to I-94 is more than sufficient.
I thought that WISDOT looked at US-14 a few years ago and decided against any expansion. Am I wrong about that?
I drive US-12 from near Elkhorn to Fort Atkinson several times a week. There is no way that it needs to be four-laned. Put in a couple of truck passing lanes and call it a day. Traffic flows pretty smoothly and there isn't a ton of traffic. I would consider putting in roundabouts at ES, A, and WI-20 though. Those intersections can be dangerous due to bad sight lines and geometry.
The relationship between US-12 and US-14 is interesting, as US-14 shoulders Chicagoland-Madison traffic as well, though mostly to and from McHenry and Kane counties, as opposed to Lake and Cook for US-12. Over the next few years I would expect US-14's traffic volumes between Woodstock and Janesville to not grow as much as they have in the past, as the orange barrels slowly recede from the never-ending work zone on I-39/90 south of Madison.
Quote from: I-39 on September 01, 2021, 09:59:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
There's a general lack of expressway/freeway connectivity between the communities south of Milwaukee along I-94 and communities along I-39/90.
And that's ok. Existing highways are sufficient. Not every corner of every area needs freeway/expressway grade highways. Lake County IL is heavily populated and survives without an E/W freeway.
WisDOT is going to have a lot of expense maintaining all the new freeway/expressway grade highways built in the last three decades. They need to focus on rebuilding and improving their interstates before anything.
Survives is the key word. Lake County IL desperately needs a true east-west expressway between US 12 and I-94 at the very least. That's a big reason why the IL 120 corridor was being looked at as that type of candidate.
It looks like there the intersection of Hwy 12 and 188 is going to get taken care of in 2026. I understand why but is there a good option among the suggestions? I don't think a U-Turn would work. A J-Turn might but it's too close to the Hwy 78 intersection. Realistically it's probably going to be the roundabout or traffic lights.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-wis188intersection/default.aspx
Yeah my guess is that they are going to want to slow traffic down there so a circle or lights make the most sense.
I'd go for the roundabout alternative. I think the STH-188 intersection is too close to the STH-78 intersection (which is signaled) for traffic signals to 188. Although this isn't being proposed, maybe the 12/78 intersection should also be converted to a roundabout. I still hope that someday, a Sauk City bypass is constructed to supplement the west side one that was completed in the 1940's.
I guess I'll take a roundybout on US 12 over another goddamn traffic light. Especially at WI 188 where you're supposed to start slowing down anyway.
A bypass of Sauk City is a tough sell at this point. It's going to be very expensive with a new river crossing and tons of right of way. It is a situation where we could save a lot of dollars in the future if a preferred alternative was identified now so a corridor can be preserved ahead of inevitable development. Sauk City/Prairie du Sac are situated at a convenient distance from a growing part of of metro Madison while laying outside of Dane County where I'm sure folks will take advantage of different rules to sprawl the shit out of that area in the next decade. So the sooner one can preserve r/w for a future bypass, the better. Even if actual construction doesn't start until the 2030's.
Yeah, I think there should be a roundabout there and at Highway 78 South to clean up any potential traffic jams at those areas if they are not going to do a Sauk City bypass. They should also do something at the County Y intersection because the way that's designed. I know there had been some talk about making it an overpass or underpass at that intersection.
It looks like they are finally starting work on resurfacing the US 12 freeway and making structure rehabilitation at bridges and culverts on it. That road has to be one of the worst driving surfaces among major highways in the state.
https://projects.511wi.gov/12walworth/full-project-overview/
Maybe the stubs at the two terminuses of the US 12 freeway should be converted into roundabouts, since it looks like no new roadway will ever be built on either end.
Quote from: thspfc on September 03, 2021, 06:08:10 PM
The relationship between US-12 and US-14 is interesting, as US-14 shoulders Chicagoland-Madison traffic as well, though mostly to and from McHenry and Kane counties, as opposed to Lake and Cook for US-12. Over the next few years I would expect US-14's traffic volumes between Woodstock and Janesville to not grow as much as they have in the past, as the orange barrels slowly recede from the never-ending work zone on I-39/90 south of Madison.
Really neither highway carries much Madison to Chicago traffic unless people are just looking for an alternative. US-12 more than US-14. But both mostly carry local or regional traffic.
Apparently there is going to be a meeting for this study:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/madisonbeltline/default.aspx
Well, it has been 7 years since the last PIMs on the Beltline study. Hopefully, we will get some good updates. The PEL study still won't be complete until next year, though.
I did not notice this story until I was randomly googling things. The story is a few months old but if this is going to happen, do not expect a Sauk City bypass to happen because the preferred route for it was mapped out at the former rail bridge.
https://www.wkow.com/news/dane-sauk-counties-announce-plan-for-great-sauk-state-trail-bridge-over-wisconsin-river/article_c8215a9a-2c61-11ec-9870-03642ad3480d.html
Quote from: US 12 fan on April 16, 2022, 10:55:56 PM
I did not notice this story until I was randomly googling things. The story is a few months old but if this is going to happen, do not expect a Sauk City bypass to happen because the preferred route for it was mapped out at the former rail bridge.
https://www.wkow.com/news/dane-sauk-counties-announce-plan-for-great-sauk-state-trail-bridge-over-wisconsin-river/article_c8215a9a-2c61-11ec-9870-03642ad3480d.html
Interesting potential complication. Though I doubt construction is imminent. It says Dane County set aside $4 million for this bridge and I can say for sure it's gonna cost a helluva lot more than that to span the lower Wisconsin, even if they're somehow able to salvage the remaining pieces of railroad bridge.
Best case scenario is if they can roll that bike trail into a bypass project so it shares the bridge with US 12, much like the new Stillwater Bridge. That would end up being far more economical than spending a couple dozen million dollars for a dedicated bike bridge.
Though that old preferred alternative from Sauk City's planning entity doesn't necessarily preclude there being a bike/ped bridge on the old railroad grade. The future bypass could quite easily bridge over the bike path, especially if they can't salvage the remaining truss spans over the east channel of the river. It's a bike trail after all, you only need like 10 feet of overhead clearance.
In the interim, there's already a nice, wide bike/ped facility on the existing US 12 bridge. The goal here really should be turning that old RR line between Sauk City and Mazomanie into a bike trail and connecting that to the existing crossing. That connection could probably be made for $4 million.
Recently, they finished turning the rail line through the old Ammo Plant into a bike trail and that's already connected through the Sauks. They are getting deliciously close to a dedicated bike facility between Madison and Devil's Lake even without a separate Wisconsin River bridge. Dane County has a more important gap between Springfield and CTH Y in that trail along US 12. They could easily fill that gap for the same price as a Wisconsin River bridge, which they don't exactly need because the existing US 12 bridge has got you covered.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 18, 2022, 04:49:55 PM
Recently, they finished turning the rail line through the old Ammo Plant into a bike trail and that's already connected through the Sauks. They are getting deliciously close to a dedicated bike facility between Madison and Devil's Lake even without a separate Wisconsin River bridge. Dane County has a more important gap between Springfield and CTH Y in that trail along US 12. They could easily fill that gap for the same price as a Wisconsin River bridge, which they don't exactly need because the existing US 12 bridge has got you covered.
If those gaps are filled, it would mean you could bike from Madison to La Crosse with the only road stretch being between Baraboo and Reedsburg.
While unlikely anytime soon, I suspect a US 12 Sauk City Bypass could still be constructed someday. I'd also like to see a bypass of Fort Atkinson (along the alignment they were planning before the study was suspended in 2012), as well as the Whitewater Bypass being expanded into a 4-lane freeway. Finally, the long-proposed US 12 realignment between Whitewater and Elkhorn should ultimately be constructed, even if it is only built as a two-lane highway with at-grade intersections.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2022, 05:24:09 PM
While unlikely anytime soon, I suspect a US 12 Sauk City Bypass could still be constructed someday. I'd also like to see a bypass of Fort Atkinson (along the alignment they were planning before the study was suspended in 2012), as well as the Whitewater Bypass being expanded into a 4-lane freeway. Finally, the long-proposed US 12 realignment between Whitewater and Elkhorn should ultimately be constructed, even if it is only built as a two-lane highway with at-grade intersections.
I just don't see the need for any changes to US-12 east of Madison. There just isn't a whole lot of traffic on the route. I travel regularly to Fort from both Mukwonago (via CTH J) and Elkhorn, and very rarely has there been a ton of traffic. The upgrades to I-90 have made it a good alternative to US-12.
Quote from: GeekJedi on April 23, 2022, 09:41:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2022, 05:24:09 PM
While unlikely anytime soon, I suspect a US 12 Sauk City Bypass could still be constructed someday. I'd also like to see a bypass of Fort Atkinson (along the alignment they were planning before the study was suspended in 2012), as well as the Whitewater Bypass being expanded into a 4-lane freeway. Finally, the long-proposed US 12 realignment between Whitewater and Elkhorn should ultimately be constructed, even if it is only built as a two-lane highway with at-grade intersections.
I just don't see the need for any changes to US-12 east of Madison. There just isn't a whole lot of traffic on the route. I travel regularly to Fort from both Mukwonago (via CTH J) and Elkhorn, and very rarely has there been a ton of traffic. The upgrades to I-90 have made it a good alternative to US-12.
Right. There was a big push for the Whitewater to Elkhorn corner cut a decade ago and it didn't really go anywhere. The Fort Atkinson bypass is dead and I believe the preferred alternative hasn't even been officially mapped. It's mostly local or regional traffic anyway.
The only changes I see is further development east from the County N interchange between Madison and Cambridge.
The only changes I see is further development east from the County N interchange between Madison and Cambridge.
[/quote]
Realistically, that would probably be up to Highway 73 as far as development. Not necessarily a freeway but maybe four lanes. Considering they're going to start work on the County AB intersection this fall, I have to believe they are thinking about it.
It looks like the US 12/18 and County AB project is going to start the day after Labor Day. This is a project that is needed although I am not a big fan of the design.
https://projects.511wi.gov/us1218-countyab/
I thought they were still going with that goofy offset location for a diamond interchange; like the plan was to connect it to future arterial streets going each way or something. This makes it seem like they're going with a diamond at the location of the existing intersection. Which is good.
But wish they had a more official map rather than this OSM baloney I currently see on the project site.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2022, 02:16:31 PM
I thought they were still going with that goofy offset location for a diamond interchange; like the plan was to connect it to future arterial streets going each way or something. This makes it seem like they're going with a diamond at the location of the existing intersection. Which is good.
But wish they had a more official map rather than this OSM baloney I currently see on the project site.
This article has a more detailed map.
https://www.hngnews.com/monona_cottage_grove/news/local/cottage_grove/wisconsin-dot-to-build-interchange-at-u-s-highway-12-18-and-county-highway-ab/article_9f3724d8-f197-11ec-bd99-1fb0bab6c954.html
So they are doing that goofy offset. <sigh>
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/hngnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/49/449aceac-f198-11ec-a02a-d7f3f2586a66/62b21bc2f3846.image.jpg)
I don't like it because it's space inefficient. They're gobbling up a lot of land to do this, which is ostensibly to hook into some suburban arterial corridor heading north from here toward Sprecher Rd. But it's like, there's plenty of room to do that on the existing alignment, if it comes to it. The greenfield path for this future arterial just seems... unnecessary.
This interchange would fit fine at the exiting location of AB. And don't even sweat that golf course, they're going to turn half of it into more landfill anyway so screw that place.
At least this will all get rid of that bad intersection; the first one east of I-39/90. That is a terrible spot to have traffic trying to turn left.
Yeah, the through traffic on AB has quite the route to take.
This is the first component to converting US 12/18 into a freeway between Interstate 39/90 and CTH-N: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/1218conv/default.aspx. When the CTH-AB-to-CTH-N segment will be converted is anyone's guess.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2022, 03:11:38 PM
And don't even sweat that golf course, they're going to turn half of it into more landfill anyway so screw that place.
Ah, Yahara Hills. Yeah, no huge loss there.... if you like playing the same golf hole 11 times in one round, then this course is for you. You could bulldoze any combination of 18 holes from either one and nobody would be able to tell you which ones are gone and which ones are still there.
Growing up in Madison, the great thing about Yahara Hills is you could walk on anytime. Odana was just a nightmare.
Can't imagine you'd wanna play there when it's a north wind. Shit, it's tough to drive by the landfill some days. P-U!!
I don't see any improvements from County AB to County N right now. At least not in this decade.
I noticed there is going to be a project from Elkhorn to Whitewater in the 2022-2027 Six-Year Highway Improvement Program. I did see an intersection improvement at the US-12-County ES intersection. I hope they put a roundabout at the US 12-Hwy 20-Hwy 67 intersection but I don't see anything special for that. Hopefully that changes because it needs one there.
Here is a link to the Southeast Region:
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/stip/projects-se.pdf
To get a better idea, here is the Improvement Program map:
https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f9096bc93a1a4ff38b3c9fad0c77f058&showLayers=STIP_4YR
The US 12/STH 20/STH 67 intersection would be an ideal location for a roundabout to be constructed. In Columbia County, the US 51/STH 22/STH 60 intersection (which is similar to the 12/20/67 intersection) is being converted into a roundabout: https://projects.511wi.gov/wis22wis60us51/. The location is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3311857,-89.3268383,841m/data=!3m1!1e3.
Another part they should work on is the US 12-Highway K intersection outside of Middleton and make that a freeway with an overpass. But that is not in the plans right now.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 31, 2022, 03:13:13 PM
The US 12/STH 20/STH 67 intersection would be an ideal location for a roundabout to be constructed. In Columbia County, the US 51/STH 22/STH 60 intersection (which is similar to the 12/20/67 intersection) is being converted into a roundabout: https://projects.511wi.gov/wis22wis60us51/. The location is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3311857,-89.3268383,841m/data=!3m1!1e3.
Ah yes. My mother's favorite way to get to Princeton, where Grandma Novak lived, from Chicago via Madison. Good ole 22. I hated that drive as a kid because it took what seemed like forever to get between Pardeeville and Montello.
As an adult, I would go one of 5 ways starting with the most common listed first.
1. I-94 to Milwaukee, I-894 / US 45 / US 41 to Allerton, Wis 33 West to Hwy A, A North-Northwest to Hwy AW, AW West to Wis 73 North. Typically 3:15
2. Same as 1 except exiting at Wis 49 towards Waupun and then AW from there. Also, typically 3:15
3. I-90 to Portage, I-39 to Wis 23 East. This was usually 3:10 but not as scenic.
4. US 12 to Ft Atkinson, Wis 89 to Columbus, Wis 73 North. Typically 3:25
5. I-90 to Madison, US 151 to Columbus, Wis 73 North. Typically 3:30.
Notice what is missing?
I can't remember the last time I took 22 south of Montello.
Pardeeville to Montello is a beautiful ride with little traffic. It can be a little pokey getting from Madison to Pardeeville though.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 03, 2022, 07:56:13 PM
Pardeeville to Montello is a beautiful ride with little traffic. It can be a little pokey getting from Madison to Pardeeville though.
Oh don't get me wrong. Going through that rolling hills country on 22 by Muir Park is beautiful. I just hated it as a kid.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 31, 2022, 03:13:13 PM
The US 12/STH 20/STH 67 intersection would be an ideal location for a roundabout to be constructed.
I couldn't immediately find the WisDOT plans for it, but my understanding is that the plan is for a roundabout there.
It also occurred to me that another great spot for a roundabout would be at the US 12-US 18-Highway 134 intersection in Cambridge. It used to be a four way stop before they separated 134 from the intersection and had 12 go non-stop.
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 09, 2022, 09:39:05 PM
It also occurred to me that another great spot for a roundabout would be at the US 12-US 18-Highway 134 intersection in Cambridge. It used to be a four way stop before they separated 134 from the intersection and had 12 go non-stop.
Not to mention it would help people slow the hell down coming into Cambridge.
Incidentally, the US 51-Highway 60-Highway 22 roundabout is open now.
https://www.channel3000.com/roundabout-at-us-51-state-highways-22-and-60-in-columbia-county-to-open-thursday/
Goggle Maps also confirms that a roundabout exists at this location. Have the surrounding roads been modified to their new configurations as well?
The curve on US 51 that didn't stop will be removed if it hasn't been already.
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 15, 2022, 02:00:49 PM
The curve on US 51 that didn't stop will be removed if it hasn't been already.
Annoying that US-51 thru traffic will now have to stop/slow down a lot there, but the old configuration always felt like an accident waiting to happen, so it's probably worth it.
Quote from: thspfc on September 15, 2022, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 15, 2022, 02:00:49 PM
The curve on US 51 that didn't stop will be removed if it hasn't been already.
Annoying that US-51 thru traffic will now have to stop/slow down a lot there, but the old configuration always felt like an accident waiting to happen, so it's probably worth it.
There's almost as much traffic going north on WI 22 as there is going west on US 51/WI 60 according to WI traffic count data (https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e12a4f051de4ea9bc865ec6393731f8). The data don't break down specific movement counts but the roundabout is probably the best solution even though I usually dislike rural roundabouts.
Quote from: thspfc on September 15, 2022, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on September 15, 2022, 02:00:49 PM
The curve on US 51 that didn't stop will be removed if it hasn't been already.
Annoying that US-51 thru traffic will now have to stop/slow down a lot there, but the old configuration always felt like an accident waiting to happen, so it's probably worth it.
I remember a few big accidents there as a kid especially as 22 South traffic turned onto 51 South.
It looks like the US 12/18 County AB interchange was completed and will be open today.
The new Exit 269 does not show up on Google Maps yet, although hopefully it will be updated soon (not holding my breath).
Has there been any news about what the plan will be at the US 12-Hwy 188 intersection outside Sauk City? Here is the site but I haven't seen any updates on this.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-wis188intersection/default.aspx
I understand they are planning to start work on it in 2026.
I just noticed they are going to put a roundabout at the US 12/18 and County W intersection outside Deerfield. The plan was revealed a few days ago.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-intersection/0224handout.pdf
Eh. I don't hate roundabouts, but I am not sure that's a great place for one.
Quote from: US 12 fan on February 18, 2024, 04:27:47 PM
I just noticed they are going to put a roundabout at the US 12/18 and County W intersection outside Deerfield. The plan was revealed a few days ago.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-intersection/0224handout.pdf
I wonder if they'll end up doing anything about the County BN intersection, which is the other big intersection on that stretch that's just a two-way stop.
They should probably install a roundabout at that intersection too. There was a corridor study for the US 12 corridor between CTH N and STH 26 between 2011 and 2014: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/12nto26/default.aspx. It had some interesting things in it, but of course did not have the one thing I'd like to do to the corridor: four-lane US 12 between CTH N and at least Cambridge.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 18, 2024, 04:36:26 PM
Eh. I don't hate roundabouts, but I am not sure that's a great place for one.
No the one place where I hate them are on these high-speed rural roads. These roads are meant for that high speed. If I have to keep slowing down to go through roundabouts then they might as well just lower the speed limit. Frankly that part of Hwy 12 west of Cambridge should be 4 lane.
Quote from: US 12 fan on February 18, 2024, 04:24:30 PM
Has there been any news about what the plan will be at the US 12-Hwy 188 intersection outside Sauk City? Here is the site but I haven't seen any updates on this.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-wis188intersection/default.aspx
I understand they are planning to start work on it in 2026.
The handout from the presentation at the PIM says it will be a signalized intersection.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 18, 2024, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: US 12 fan on February 18, 2024, 04:24:30 PM
Has there been any news about what the plan will be at the US 12-Hwy 188 intersection outside Sauk City? Here is the site but I haven't seen any updates on this.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us12-wis188intersection/default.aspx
I understand they are planning to start work on it in 2026.
The handout from the presentation at the PIM says it will be a signalized intersection.
I had a feeling they would do that.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 18, 2024, 04:36:26 PM
Eh. I don't hate roundabouts, but I am not sure that's a great place for one.
Vehicles traveling on 12/18 going west top a small hill before driving down to the intersection with Oak Park Rd/Highway W. I have been rear ended turning north onto Oak Park Road. They are REALLY going to have slow down speeds well ahead of the roundabout to prevent even more crashes.
Maybe they should bump the speed limit on US 12/18 down to 45 MPH when approaching the new CTH W/Oak Park Rd. roundabout, and raise it back to 55 MPH once clear of the intersection.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2024, 11:49:25 AM
Maybe they should bump the speed limit on US 12/18 down to 45 MPH when approaching the new CTH W/Oak Park Rd. roundabout, and raise it back to 55 MPH once clear of the intersection.
The better idea is to simply not build them on roads with a 55 MPH speed limit.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 20, 2024, 10:58:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2024, 11:49:25 AM
Maybe they should bump the speed limit on US 12/18 down to 45 MPH when approaching the new CTH W/Oak Park Rd. roundabout, and raise it back to 55 MPH once clear of the intersection.
The better idea is to simply not build them on roads with a 55 MPH speed limit.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I am not sure what the alternatives are. A light or four-way stop isn't any better, and actually could be worse. They aren't going to four-lane that entire stretch or separate the grades.
Presently, there are no turn lanes at this junction. It would certainly be better than the status quo to add turn lanes.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 21, 2024, 09:35:18 AM
Presently, there are no turn lanes at this junction. It would certainly be better than the status quo to add turn lanes.
Oh. I was unaware that it didn't have turn lanes.
I would prefer actual turn lanes being added to the roadway, instead of the roadway being widened to two lanes just before to just after the intersection. Traditionally, rural two-lane roadways have lacked turn lanes, although in some cases that is being rectified (e.g. the soon-to-begin reconstruction of US 51 from US 12/18 in Madison to Interstate 39/90 east of Stoughton: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/sw/us51-danecounty/default.aspx).
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2024, 08:41:00 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 20, 2024, 10:58:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2024, 11:49:25 AM
Maybe they should bump the speed limit on US 12/18 down to 45 MPH when approaching the new CTH W/Oak Park Rd. roundabout, and raise it back to 55 MPH once clear of the intersection.
The better idea is to simply not build them on roads with a 55 MPH speed limit.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I am not sure what the alternatives are. A light or four-way stop isn't any better, and actually could be worse. They aren't going to four-lane that entire stretch or separate the grades.
The alternative is leave it how it is.
Quote from: US 12 fan on February 18, 2024, 04:27:47 PM
I just noticed they are going to put a roundabout at the US 12/18 and County W intersection outside Deerfield. The plan was revealed a few days ago.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-intersection/0224handout.pdf (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/by-region/sw/us1218-intersection/0224handout.pdf)
What the hell was the purpose of the massive overpass and the reroute of Hwy 73 at US-12/18? I mean, if we're done with the pretense of US 12/18 being a through highway, then they could've just put in 2 roundabouts to solve the Hwy 73 issue and have been done with it.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 21, 2024, 08:54:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2024, 08:41:00 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 20, 2024, 10:58:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2024, 11:49:25 AM
Maybe they should bump the speed limit on US 12/18 down to 45 MPH when approaching the new CTH W/Oak Park Rd. roundabout, and raise it back to 55 MPH once clear of the intersection.
The better idea is to simply not build them on roads with a 55 MPH speed limit.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I am not sure what the alternatives are. A light or four-way stop isn't any better, and actually could be worse. They aren't going to four-lane that entire stretch or separate the grades.
The alternative is leave it how it is.
I mean...it's a dangerous intersection.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 22, 2024, 08:59:22 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 21, 2024, 08:54:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2024, 08:41:00 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 20, 2024, 10:58:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2024, 11:49:25 AM
Maybe they should bump the speed limit on US 12/18 down to 45 MPH when approaching the new CTH W/Oak Park Rd. roundabout, and raise it back to 55 MPH once clear of the intersection.
The better idea is to simply not build them on roads with a 55 MPH speed limit.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I am not sure what the alternatives are. A light or four-way stop isn't any better, and actually could be worse. They aren't going to four-lane that entire stretch or separate the grades.
The alternative is leave it how it is.
I mean...it's a dangerous intersection.
Actually, it was two dangerous intersections. It seemed like a good way to improve safety and traffic flow. The road is busy enough at peak hours to avoid putting in two roundabouts in close proximity. Considering the rapid growth of the Madison CMSA (1M by 2030), it's only going to get busier.