Wisconsin notes

[peterj920]

Other roads that could possibly have a 70 Mph speed limit are US 10 between I-41 and Fremont, US 45 between US 10 and I-41, and US 12 between Elkhorn and the WI/IL state line.  All 3 freeway segments branch off of freeway segments that will be signed at 70 so the speed limit would be consistent and continuous. 

[midwesternroadguy]

Different Topic:  WI STH 57, from STH 23 at Plymouth to east of Elkhart Lake

Rand McNally's 2016 Atlas shows this as multi-lane divided now.  Is this a mistake?  Or was this section expanded?

[triplemultiplex]

Different Topic:  WI STH 57, from STH 23 at Plymouth to east of Elkhart Lake

Rand McNally's 2016 Atlas shows this as multi-lane divided now.  Is this a mistake?  Or was this section expanded?

That is a mistake for sure. The four-lane ends just past CTH O immediately north of WI 23.

[The Ghostbuster]

In 2010, there was a proposal by a Milwaukee County Supervisor and South Milwaukee's mayor to establish a plan to extend the State Highway 794/Lake Parkway from it's current terminus southward to State Highway 100/Ryan Road. Has anyone else heard about this proposal? I've not found out much about the proposed project since it was first proposed. There is no timetable for its potential construction. If it was constructed, it would go behind the house my paternal grandfather grew up in, and lived in for many years (It is a short distance north of the S. Pennsylvania Ave./E. Puetz Rd. intersection) in Oak Creek. Thoughts anyone?

[Molandfreak]

Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?


iPhone

[triplemultiplex]

In 2010, there was a proposal by a Milwaukee County Supervisor and South Milwaukee's mayor to establish a plan to extend the State Highway 794/Lake Parkway from it's current terminus southward to State Highway 100/Ryan Road. Has anyone else heard about this proposal? I've not found out much about the proposed project since it was first proposed. There is no timetable for its potential construction. If it was constructed, it would go behind the house my paternal grandfather grew up in, and lived in for many years (It is a short distance north of the S. Pennsylvania Ave./E. Puetz Rd. intersection) in Oak Creek. Thoughts anyone?

I haven't heard squat either and I went to an information meeting about it several years ago.  WisDOT probably has little interest in a Lake Parkway extension as they have a full plate expanding existing freeways around Milwaukee.  I think it will end up as another SEWRPC fantasy; like the northern MKE bypass they themselves rejected as recently as 2000.

[GeekJedi]

Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

[Roadguy]

Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?
iPhone

Mn/DOT will not end up changing I-90 speed limit in Dresbach because the current speed limit change location is less than a mile to the border.  WisDOT is not allowed to raise the 65 mph through La Crosse (it's only allowed for rural interstates) thus the 70 mph in Wisconsin will begin at US 53 (exit 4) in La Crosse.  It does not make sense for Mn/DOT to move that speed change unless they removed it altogether if WisDOT made it 70 mph through La Crosse.

As for Afton, that is a good question but because the 70mph in Wisconsin won't start until WIS 35 I doubt Mn/DOT is going to make the change.  It would only be a 7 mile stretch of 70 mph in MN before MnDOT would have to switch it back to 65 mph before the border crossing.  It does not make sense to change it, it's better to have consistency than speed limits changing every few miles on the interstate.  The time savings over 7 miles is insignificant.

**Ahem, cough, this is a hint to WisDOT that it does not make sense to change speed limits in places like Janesville, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Hudson, Appleton, Point, etc for a few miles just to switch them back to 70.**  Someone needs to advocate the legislature and governor to change this.  People are not going to drop their speeds for a few miles especially since many of these stretches don't drive like urban freeways especially the ones with rural ditch designs.  Although this is classic Wisconsin, I wouldn't expect anything less (Some of their rules and design standards make me shake my head).

The limits of the speed limit changes in Wisconsin are listed here: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm

[Big John]

The new Wisconsin law allows 70 MPH for any freeway (not expressways with at-grade crossings) as long as the DOT determines it to be safe.  The DOT determined those urban areas to be unsafe for 70 MPH.

[mgk920]

Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.



Mike

[Roadguy]

The new Wisconsin law allows 70 MPH for any freeway (not expressways with at-grade crossings) as long as the DOT determines it to be safe.  The DOT determined those urban areas to be unsafe for 70 MPH.

I had heard at one point it was due to law (they were authorizing rural interstates only) but I looked it up and you are right.  http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/acts/19

It would be great to see a justification of reasons for each of these areas why DOT found these urban areas to be unsafe.  Many of these stretches have no substandard horizontal and vertical curves (you can tell because it's flat and straight, lol) and meet the 13 controlling criteria for design standards.

[Roadguy]

**Ahem, cough, this is a hint to WisDOT that it does not make sense to change speed limits in places like Janesville, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Hudson, Appleton, Point, etc for a few miles just to switch them back to 70.**  Someone needs to advocate the legislature and governor to change this.  People are not going to drop their speeds for a few miles especially since many of these stretches don't drive like urban freeways especially the ones with rural ditch designs.  Although this is classic Wisconsin, I wouldn't expect anything less (Some of their rules and design standards make me shake my head).

Meh, there's worse. Like Iowa's DOT lowering I-35's speed limit literally just for the U.S. 30 interchange.

Just because there are worse, that does not justify it as a proper decision.  But I have not driven that stretch of 35 since Iowa raised their speed limits so I did not realize this was the case.  That is another interesting case, it would be great to see the reasoning behind that.

[tchafe1978]

Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.



Mike

It's not going to be a full interchange, it is going to be a "jug handle" interchange. 73 will be realigned to go straight under 12/18, with jug handle ramps from 73 to 12/18 and RIRO intersections on 12/18.

[SEWIGuy]

Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.



Mike

It's not going to be a full interchange, it is going to be a "jug handle" interchange. 73 will be realigned to go straight under 12/18, with jug handle ramps from 73 to 12/18 and RIRO intersections on 12/18.

Yep.  Here is what it will look like.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/docs/map-prefalt.pdf

When they redid US-12/18 from Cambridge to Madison about 15 years ago, I thought they should have dealt with this intersection then.  It almost immediately became a problem with traffic back ups on WI-73 and a lot of "nervy" left hand turns.  Not sure this will do the trick in the long run though.

[mgk920]

Driving US 12 from Cambridge to Madison today, I noticed that work is in full swing for the redesign of the intersection of WI-73 and US 12. US 12 was down to one lane for several miles, using flaggers at the east and west ends of the closures as well as the intersections of US 12 and Fadness, WI-73 south and WI-73 north.

Someone told me a week or so ago that WisDOT is building an interchange there.  Another piece of the US 12 puzzle falls into place.



Mike

It's not going to be a full interchange, it is going to be a "jug handle" interchange. 73 will be realigned to go straight under 12/18, with jug handle ramps from 73 to 12/18 and RIRO intersections on 12/18.

Yep.  Here is what it will look like.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/swregion/73/docs/map-prefalt.pdf

When they redid US-12/18 from Cambridge to Madison about 15 years ago, I thought they should have dealt with this intersection then.  It almost immediately became a problem with traffic back ups on WI-73 and a lot of "nervy" left hand turns.  Not sure this will do the trick in the long run though.

It looks almost like US (now 'I') 41 at WI 33 at Allenton before it was upgraded to a more 'normal' interchange back in the 1990s.  It's a start and it does look to be upgradable.

Mike

[triplemultiplex]

It's a start and it does look to be upgradable.

My fictional dreams still conjure images of a new terrain alignment between Ft. Atkinson and I-39/90.  But of course, only in the unlikely event US 12 connects to something in Illinois.
In the interim, perhaps it is time to start pondering a super-2 bypass of Cambridge.

[mgk920]

It's a start and it does look to be upgradable.

My fictional dreams still conjure images of a new terrain alignment between Ft. Atkinson and I-39/90.  But of course, only in the unlikely event US 12 connects to something in Illinois.
In the interim, perhaps it is time to start pondering a super-2 bypass of Cambridge.

Upgradable two lanes on a four-lanes ROW.



Also, if you look at the aerial images of I-39/90 SE of Madison, from above you can easily see the ROW for the interchange where that US 12 freeway was originally planned to connect at that kinky 'S' curve.

Mike

[Revive 755]

My fictional dreams still conjure images of a new terrain alignment between Ft. Atkinson and I-39/90.  But of course, only in the unlikely event US 12 connects to something in Illinois.

I still think the semi-expressway section of WI 50 between US 12 and the Kenosha area is good enough for collecting Illinois travelers and funneling them towards US 12.

[I-39]

US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

[hobsini2]

Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?


iPhone

I think certainly I-94 will remain 65 until the US 12 exit. Too many interchanges in the first 5 miles to be considered rural.

I-90 is probably going to be that way as well but not because of the interchanges but rather the "S" curve and hills between the US 14/61 exit to Winona and US 53.

[hobsini2]

US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

[I-39]

US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

[SSOWorld]

Once the speed limit is changed, do you think MN/DOT will change I-90 through Dresbach and I-94 through Afton to 70? Or will the adjacent segments in Wisconsin remain 65 because of La Crosse and Hudson?


iPhone

I think certainly I-94 will remain 65 until the US 12 exit. Too many interchanges in the first 5 miles to be considered rural.

I-90 is probably going to be that way as well but not because of the interchanges but rather the "S" curve and hills between the US 14/61 exit to Winona and US 53.

Right now the 70 zone in MN goes south past Dresbach, but IIRC, the 70 zone ended prior to the southern US-14/61 exit to Le Cresecent.  A tight curve to the Mississippi River Bridge.  Though they're rebuilding it, it's still likely to be a 65-zone after the construction though due to "urban zone".  WI's cutting it's 70 zone at 53 NB on I-90.

[hobsini2]

US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.

[I-39]

US 12 does not need any additional freeway upgrades between Elkhorn and I-39/90. Perhaps widening the existing section, but that's it. Since it will not connect to anything in Illinois, they do not need to continue with a full blown interstate-compatible freeway.

Plus, I don't know if the section between Elkhorn and I-39/90 would be approved anyway, since there appears to be wetlands and other obstacles in the way.

I strongly disagree. You can have a freeway or expressway that connects to Madison without worrying about what Illinois does. States have done that all the time. Mississippi (US 45, US 82 and US 78), Arkansas (AR 549/Fut I-49 and I-540),  Connecticut (CT 8 and Tpk to US 6), Georgia (I-520), Indiana (US 24), Iowa (US 34), Missouri (US 36), Maryland (US 340), New York (US 15), Ohio (US 33), Oklahoma (Indian Nation Tpk and Cherokee Tpk), Pennsylvania (US 219, US 1 and PA 43), Tennessee (I-26), Vermont (US 4 and VT 279), Virginia (VA 168) are some examples.

If you had at least an expressway connecting Madison and Elkhorn, you would cut the travel time tremendously between Madison and Lake Geneva as well as Kenosha. Capital to Lake Geneva via US 12 is 72 miles or 1 hr 32 min. Think about it. If you had a bypass of Cambridge and Ft Atkinson and then cut the corner between Elkhorn and Whitewater, you could cut off a half hour easy at 55 mph. Right now, to Kenosha via I-94 is a minimum of 2 hrs for 116 miles. Via US 12 and Wis 50 is 2 hrs 15 min for 103 miles.

As to the obstacles, it's not like you are building a freeway over the Horicon Marsh. Yes there are some wetlands but not enough to make a huge impact. Besides, that's what the ACE would be really good for dealing with it.

So plow yet another freeway through the SE Wisconsin landscape in order to save 20 minutes? Is it really worth the spending lots of $$$ to build a freeway that will not connect to anything when other much more critical projects are needed. You could simply realign and straighten the existing US 12 in some areas and add passing lanes for a fraction of the cost.

And the ROW for this freeway passes/goes through several forests and lakes. If they can't approve the FAP 420 alignment through Glacial Park, I don't see how they can approve this when it would impact more wetlands than the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension.

I showed you that often enough states don't wait for others to do something when the project is within their state.

As to the wetlands, you can do a causeway like the Belt Line. And the wetlands you are talking about
is a short piece that would be in the probable ROW. Like I said, it's not the Horicon Marsh.

Yes there are parts of 12 you can widen within the footprint such as Cambirdge to Wis 26 and Hwy K to the east side of Whitewater. In fact I would hope the do utilize them. But the biggest traffic issues with 12 is Cambridge  itself, Ft Atkinson itself and between the east end of Whitewater and the end of the freeway. putting in a suicide passing lane between Whitewater and Elkhorn is a bad idea. Way too many blind hills.

And you don't think that if people had a way to bypass Milwaukee entirely they wouldn't take it? I got a bridge to sell you if you do.

Ok, let me say this for the record. I do support finishing the freeway between Madison and Elkhorn in principle, but I only believe it should be built if the Richmond leg of the IL-53 extension is built (which will probably never happen). If you extend the freeway from Elkhorn to Madison, it is going to create an even bigger bottleneck at the state line than there is now, further congesting Lake County.

What I think needs to happen (in an ideal world), is IDOT/WisDOT need to discuss moving the end of the US 12 freeway further west closer to IL-47 (east of Hebron) so they can route it around Glacial Park, avoiding the environmental impacts, then they just find a way to route it around Volo Blog and then presto! The Richmond-Waukegan corridor can be constructed.