News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

WIS 29 - Interstate Standard? Or no?

Started by merrycilantro, May 25, 2012, 01:04:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

SEWIGuy

Quote from: thspfc on April 10, 2021, 08:56:12 AM
Quote from: mrose on April 10, 2021, 08:10:59 AM
I think it's pretty adaptable and it is slowly becoming standard from points of GB west.... but... there's a lot of work.

Does seem worthy of a US route IMO though.
The US route vs State route hierarchy within individual states is pretty much a thing of the past.

Yep.

And we are decades away from it being fully interstate compatible.


mgk920

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2021, 04:12:29 PM
I wouldn't mind STH-29 being completely freeway from Interstate 94 to Interstate 41. In the extremely unlikely event STH-29 is given an Interstate designation, I'd pick the 98 designation. That way, the relatively-nearby STH-98 could be renumbered as an extension of STH-153. Continuing into this very unlikely scenario, existing STH-29 would be reduced to a Prescott-to-Interstate 94 route, and the portion of existing STH-29 from Green Bay to Kewaunee would either get a new number (such as 62, 84, or 99) or this segment would be removed from the state highway system.

Right now I'd put better odds on WI 29 becoming an eastward extension of US 212 that it becoming an interstate.

Mike

Lyon Wonder

Quote from: texaskdog on May 25, 2012, 05:06:01 PM
It should become US-8.  The current 8 is hardly an important road anymore

Or an eastern extension of US 212 or even a rerouted US 10 (the current US 10 could become US 110 or state numbered highways).

SEWIGuy

I doubt very much it will be a US-212 extension and definitely not a rerouted US-10.  Wisconsin doesn't really see a difference between state and US highways.

Case in point, they give WI-93 the "red line treatment" on state maps between La Crosse and Eau Claire even with US-53 serving both AND having being a prominent route north of Eau Claire.  If there was ever a case for a route swap, it would be there.  They just don't think the hassle and expense is worth it.

The only think I wish they would do is end WI-29 at I-94 and I-41 and give new numbers to the short, relatively minor highways on either end.

SEWIGuy

I also think that US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac will be an interstate before WI-29 will be.

SkyPesos

Quote from: thspfc on April 10, 2021, 08:56:12 AM
The US route vs State route hierarchy within individual states is pretty much a thing of the past.
So true. Here's some examples I can name of in my mind with a state route on a freeway/expressway and parallel 2 lane US route:
- OH 32 over US 50 between Cincinnati and Athens
- OH 2 over US 6 between Sandusky and Lorain
- OH 2 over US 20 east of Cleveland
- IN 63 over US 41 between Terre Haute and some point north of I-74
- In the past, OH 1 was originally planned as a second Ohio Turnpike, connecting the 3C cities. That would largely replace US 42. That planned route is now I-71.

thspfc

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2021, 11:50:20 AM
I also think that US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac will be an interstate before WI-29 will be.
Between Madison and Waupun, sure. But US-151 between Waupun and I-41 is just as far away, if not further, than WI-29 is from being an Interstate. 151's traffic volumes between WI-26 and I-41 don't justify any upgrades. Honestly, if they're going to make any changes to that section, the first thing I would do is remove the WI-175 ""interchange" " .

SEWIGuy

Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2021, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 11, 2021, 11:50:20 AM
I also think that US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac will be an interstate before WI-29 will be.
Between Madison and Waupun, sure. But US-151 between Waupun and I-41 is just as far away, if not further, than WI-29 is from being an Interstate. 151's traffic volumes between WI-26 and I-41 don't justify any upgrades. Honestly, if they're going to make any changes to that section, the first thing I would do is remove the WI-175 ""interchange" " .


I don't think its going to happen anytime soon, but it's only 15 miles between the last WI-26 interchange and the Military Road interchange.  You would have to close off a handful of intersections, and build an interchange at Lamartine, and that's about it.

Much easier than WI-29 and much likely to see future growth as well.

I-39

#33
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2021, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 09, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.


I can't envision how this would have been effective.

It would have provided a combined route that could have served the purposes of both US 10/WIS 29 and would have saved millions in maintenance costs by not having to maintain two freeway/expressway grade highways. The existence of both is just another example of a WisDOT pork barrel project and not thinking outside the box.

skluth

I never saw the point in WI 15 becoming I-43 and the wacky extension with long concurrency to promote US 51 to I-39 north of Portage. I think those were so Wisconsin could increase the speed limit after they finally trashed the universally ignored 55 mph national speed limit on rural interstate highways in the late 80's. (The only national law that may have been more ignored and reviled than Prohibition.) WI 29 is fine as a state highway. If it's promoted to US 212 or some other US number, it could subsume all of WI 29 west of GB leaving the Bellevue-Kewaunee segment as is. The  B-K segment could also augment WI 172 while the Prescott-Elk Mound segment could be an extended WI 40. But I'd just leave it as it is.

thspfc

Quote from: skluth on April 11, 2021, 05:01:36 PM
I never saw the point in WI 15 becoming I-43 and the wacky extension with long concurrency to promote US 51 to I-39 north of Portage. I think those were so Wisconsin could increase the speed limit after they finally trashed the universally ignored 55 mph national speed limit on rural interstate highways in the late 80's. (The only national law that may have been more ignored and reviled than Prohibition.) WI 29 is fine as a state highway. If it's promoted to US 212 or some other US number, it could subsume all of WI 29 west of GB leaving the Bellevue-Kewaunee segment as is. The  B-K segment could also augment WI 172 while the Prescott-Elk Mound segment could be an extended WI 40. But I'd just leave it as it is.
When talking about the situations with I-39, I-43, and even I-41 for that matter, comparisons are important. The way I see it, I-39 between I-90/94 and Wausau compares to I-37 in Texas. But the difference is that the I-39 corridor, even without the I-39 designation, would be a 2di corridor already (and from Rockford to the current I-39 split near Portage, it is, albeit with east/west numbers), even if there was no freeway north of Portage. I-39 is a 306-mile arrow-straight Interstate-standard corridor that serves significant amounts of long-distance traffic. If that's not worthy of an Interstate designation, I don't know what is. At that point you might as well just delete the entire Interstate system other than the x0s and x5s and a select few others.

I-43 seems a bit awkward because of how the Milwaukee-Beloit (old WI-15) segment differs from the rest of the route, but if I-41 existed at the time that stretch became an Interstate, it would have been designated as I-41, and I-43 would have ended at the Marquette Interchange. At this point in time I see no reason to change it, as doing so would cause more confusion than good, but it is a product of the sometimes untidy growth of the Interstate system.

thspfc

I've said this many times before. The changes I would make to the Wisconsin Interstate system are truncating I-41 to the Zoo Interchange, extending I-39 to the northern WI-29 interchange in Wausau, designating WI-172 as I-243, and designating WI-441 as I-441.

SEWIGuy

US-51 was 65 mph long before it was I-39. It was granted an exception when the 65 mph rule was for interstates only.

DJ Particle

Quote from: thspfc on April 11, 2021, 05:55:46 PM
designating WI-441 as I-441.
I think that's a long-term goal.  Recent improvements are putting it in-line with I-standards.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: I-39 on April 11, 2021, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2021, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 09, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.


I can't envision how this would have been effective.

It would have provided a combined route that could have served the purposes of both US 10/WIS 29 and would have saved millions in maintenance costs by not having to maintain two freeway/expressway grade highways. The existence of both is just another example of a WisDOT pork barrel project and not thinking outside the box.


I just don't understand where you would put it.  Say you placed this starting at Kaukauna, ran it up toward Clintonville, then straight west to I-39 at some point between Wausau and Stevens Point.

If I live in Appleton and wanted to go to Stevens Point, I wouldn't take this route even if it were a full interstate highway.  I would take a two lane US-10.  I live in Green Bay.  If I wanted to go to Wausau or points west, I am not driving 30 miles out of my way to take this - I am taking WI-29.

I just don't think its feasible.  So you would end up with an expensive "new terrain" highway that costs a lot, and you would probably still have crowded two lane highways in US-10 and WI-29 to deal with anyway.

thspfc

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 12, 2021, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 11, 2021, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 10, 2021, 08:10:01 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 09, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
One of the biggest errors WisDOT made was not trying to do a combined corridor for the US 10 and WIS 29 corridors between Appleton/Green Bay and I-39. Some sort of central corridor could have served the purpose for both, and eliminated the need to maintain both. That combined corridor could've been an Interstate.


I can't envision how this would have been effective.

It would have provided a combined route that could have served the purposes of both US 10/WIS 29 and would have saved millions in maintenance costs by not having to maintain two freeway/expressway grade highways. The existence of both is just another example of a WisDOT pork barrel project and not thinking outside the box.


I just don't understand where you would put it.  Say you placed this starting at Kaukauna, ran it up toward Clintonville, then straight west to I-39 at some point between Wausau and Stevens Point.

If I live in Appleton and wanted to go to Stevens Point, I wouldn't take this route even if it were a full interstate highway.  I would take a two lane US-10.  I live in Green Bay.  If I wanted to go to Wausau or points west, I am not driving 30 miles out of my way to take this - I am taking WI-29.

I just don't think its feasible.  So you would end up with an expensive "new terrain" highway that costs a lot, and you would probably still have crowded two lane highways in US-10 and WI-29 to deal with anyway.
Agreed. The way I look at it, US-10 is the Walmart version of WI-29, but both are important. US-10 connects smaller cities (Marshfield, Stevens Point, and Appleton compared to Eau Claire/Chippewa Falls, Wausau, and Green Bay), but they each have their own traffic flows.

JREwing78

Hwy 29 has been built out to a point where conversion to an Interstate highway requires little beyond closing off minor road access and building interchanges where it meets more major roads. If someone made a decent case for the Interstate-branding, it's not a monumental effort to make it happen.

But outside of Green Bay Packers game traffic, Hwy 29 isn't THAT busy of a highway. Most sections see fewer than 20,000 vpd, which is fairly light traffic for a 4-lane divided highway.  It's not unlike traffic levels on US-41 and US-141 north of Abrams, and nobody is claiming either of those roadways need Interstate signage (south of Abrams, given traffic levels and importance, one could make a case to sign it as I-41). The decision to build those roadways as 4-lane controlled-access divided highways, with the ROW to upgrade to freeways as traffic conditions warrant, is evidence of wise planning on WisDOT's part.

This is quite unlike my home state of Michigan with non-Interstate divided highways. When MDOT began 4-lane divided highway buildouts in earnest, they built them on fairly narrow ROW (200' or less), and often still allowed driveway access. Poor zoning policy allowed homes and business to build too close to these roads, and now MDOT cheapest upgrade options are bypasses of these roads (US-31 between Holland and Grand Haven, and US-131 south of Portage are good examples).

Then MDOT went crazy in the other direction, by building fully-limited access freeways in lightly-populated areas based mainly on weekend traffic volumes (US-127 north of Mount Pleasant and US-131 north of Big Rapids are good examples). MDOT could have saved some cash by allowing some cross traffic and building fewer overpasses and interchanges, and redirected that to corridors that actually need 4 lanes (M-40 & M-89 between Holland and US-131, M-72 between Traverse City and Grayling, M-37 & M-113 south of Traverse City, US-127 between I-94 and US-12 in Jackson County).

One of the few places where MDOT used the controlled-access 4-lane highway type is US-2/41 between Gladstone and Rapid River. My guess is that there were daydreams in an MDOT 25 year plan to 4-lane US-2 between Iron Mountain and St. Ignace that never came to fruition.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 12, 2021, 09:08:56 PM
Hwy 29 has been built out to a point where conversion to an Interstate highway requires little beyond closing off minor road access and building interchanges where it meets more major roads. If someone made a decent case for the Interstate-branding, it's not a monumental effort to make it happen.

But outside of Green Bay Packers game traffic, Hwy 29 isn't THAT busy of a highway. Most sections see fewer than 20,000 vpd, which is fairly light traffic for a 4-lane divided highway. 

Exactly.  It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade.  The money would just be better spent elsewhere.

SkyPesos

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 12, 2021, 09:08:56 PM
This is quite unlike my home state of Michigan with non-Interstate divided highways. When MDOT began 4-lane divided highway buildouts in earnest, they built them on fairly narrow ROW (200' or less), and often still allowed driveway access. Poor zoning policy allowed homes and business to build too close to these roads, and now MDOT cheapest upgrade options are bypasses of these roads (US-31 between Holland and Grand Haven, and US-131 south of Portage are good examples).

Then MDOT went crazy in the other direction, by building fully-limited access freeways in lightly-populated areas based mainly on weekend traffic volumes (US-127 north of Mount Pleasant and US-131 north of Big Rapids are good examples). MDOT could have saved some cash by allowing some cross traffic and building fewer overpasses and interchanges, and redirected that to corridors that actually need 4 lanes (M-40 & M-89 between Holland and US-131, M-72 between Traverse City and Grayling, M-37 & M-113 south of Traverse City, US-127 between I-94 and US-12 in Jackson County).
Sounds like something similar to what Ohio has. US 23 between Columbus and Delaware is a 4 lane expressway, but the sprawl from Columbus caught up there, and can be annoying to drive, as part of the main Columbus-Toledo corridor. I think the proposal now is to get a limited access connection to I-71 from north of Delaware. Between Columbus and Chillicothe, US 23 goes straight through South Broomfield, though a bypass is being planned. A bypass of Circleville would be nice too. Meanwhile, I think US 33 between Bellefontaine and Marysville as a full freeway is overkill, same could be argued for Columbus to Athens even.

As for WI 29, didn't it just get upgraded from a 2 lane to a 4 lane expressway about 15 years ago? I took a look of WI 29 on GSV, and it looks like there are very few traffic signals, unlike some other 4 lane expressways out there. Most of the access are from interchanges already, and the at grades are from small farm roads with like 3 vehicles a day using it. With most of the peak traffic for Packers games, as mentioned already, and nothing much outside of that, I don't really see a need for a full freeway upgrade atm, considering the quality of the road.

JREwing78

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 13, 2021, 10:57:27 AM
Sounds like something similar to what Ohio has. US 23 between Columbus and Delaware is a 4 lane expressway, but the sprawl from Columbus caught up there, and can be annoying to drive, as part of the main Columbus-Toledo corridor.

"Expressway" is overselling that stretch of US-23 by a lot. You want to look north of Delaware for something that qualifies, starting with that section with the frontage roads. They didn't employ any significant access management between Delaware and I-270, and it's going to be crazy expensive now to retrofit that in - thus the proposal to connect to I-71 by way of the US-36 corridor.

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 13, 2021, 10:57:27 AM
As for WI 29, didn't it just get upgraded from a 2 lane to a 4 lane expressway about 15 years ago? I took a look of WI 29 on GSV, and it looks like there are very few traffic signals, unlike some other 4 lane expressways out there. Most of the access are from interchanges already, and the at grades are from small farm roads with like 3 vehicles a day using it. With most of the peak traffic for Packers games, as mentioned already, and nothing much outside of that, I don't really see a need for a full freeway upgrade atm, considering the quality of the road.

Wisconsin upgraded Hwy 29 in bits and pieces over time; it only completed the 4-lane expressway between I-94 near Eau Claire and I-41 in Green Bay about 5 years ago, but it was easily 20-30 years for WisDOT to build it out. Similar story with US-151 between Fond du Lac and Dubuque - some sections were 4-laned 50+ years ago, but it wasn't completely expressway/freeway until ~10 years ago.

US-41 in Wisconsin was built out in a similar manner. Some 4-lane sections were started in the '50s, and over many years developed into freeway/expressway. The last sections of expressway were completed about 10 years ago, and one section of US-41 (now posted as I-41) between Green Bay and Appleton was converted to freeway only about 20 years ago.

SEWIGuy

It is insane to think that there were still driveways on US-41 just south of De Pere 20 years ago.

Big John

Prior to the expressway conversion, it was referred to as "Bloody 29" because of the high number of accidents.

thspfc

Quote from: Big John on April 13, 2021, 03:21:53 PM
Prior to the expressway conversion, it was referred to as "Bloody 29" because of the high number of accidents.
I think that type of term was used for US-10 in central WI, US-12 between Middleton and the Dells, US-151 between Madison and Fond du Lac, and WI-29 before their respective upgrades to four lane expressways.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 13, 2021, 12:52:02 PM
Wisconsin upgraded Hwy 29 in bits and pieces over time; it only completed the 4-lane expressway between I-94 near Eau Claire and I-41 in Green Bay about 5 years ago, but it was easily 20-30 years for WisDOT to build it out. Similar story with US-151 between Fond du Lac and Dubuque - some sections were 4-laned 50+ years ago, but it wasn't completely expressway/freeway until ~10 years ago.

The last freeway/expressway expansion project for WI 29 was finished in 2005. (Chippewa Falls bypass)
For US 151, that happened in 2007 (SW Fond du Lac County)

Both corridors have seen a few freeway conversion projects since then.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

gr8daynegb

I remember the entertainment magazines labelling WI-29 as I-96 for whatever reason.  Would guess if they were crazy enough it would be an I-x41 or I-x94, followed by a 96 extension or I-98, followed then by extending I-43, or on the bottom giving I-39 a 3di spur........with following how do we rename WI-29 as would seem pointless to keep as is lol

With likely winner being it stays WI-29 and nothing happens.....I would see WISDOT trying to make all of 29 from 41 to 94 completely up to interstate standards though 
So Lone Star now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.